[Mr. Speaker in the Chair]

Mr. Speaker: I inform the House that the first Bill on the Order Paper, the Patents Act 1977 (Amendment) Bill, has been withdrawn. We shall therefore proceed to the second Bill.

Vincent Cable: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. May I ask both why this problem has arisen and two specific questions? First, why has the Bill been found to be defective only at this very late stage, whereas the defect might have been identified earlier? Secondly, why is it not possible to rescue this potentially useful Bill by amendment in Committee?

Mr. Speaker: I was concentrating on the hon. Gentleman's first point; could he repeat his second one?

Vincent Cable: Some hon. Members attending this debate were hoping that this useful Bill might be passed for further scrutiny and improvement by amendment in Committee. Why is it not possible to do that?

Mr. Speaker: It is entirely up to the hon. Member promoting a private Member's Bill, even when we have gathered in the Chamber to debate it, to decide whether he or she wishes to proceed with it. As I said, the Bill has been withdrawn. There can therefore be no other comment on the matter.

Andrew Dismore: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. Do you not agree that it is a gross discourtesy to hon. Members when a Bill is withdrawn at such a late stage? I certainly spent some time yesterday afternoon preparing a speech for this debate—[Hon. Members: "Ah."]—and I know that many other hon. Members have done the same. If notice of the Bill's withdrawal had been given earlier—yesterday morning, for instance—much of the time that has been spent by hon. Members could have been saved and diverted to other purposes. Did the hon. Member for Bridgwater (Mr. Liddell-Grainger) give you a reason for withdrawing the Bill?

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Gentleman is asking me to express an opinion, but as he knows, I cannot do that. I am not entitled to an opinion so I cannot help him. However, I am sure that there will be an occasion when he can use his speech.

Claire Ward: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. Whilst not asking you to express an opinion, I wonder whether you think that it would have been appropriate for the hon. Member for Bridgwater to have an opportunity at least to express to hon. Members in the Chamber why he felt it was appropriate to withdraw the Bill.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member for Bridgwater is guided by the same rules as guide all hon. Members: the rules of the House. He has exercised his right to withdraw the Bill and there is nothing more to be said about the matter.

Food Labelling Bill

Order for Second Reading read.

Eric Pickles: I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
	I shall have slightly more time for this debate than I had anticipated, but I am sure, seeing the calibre of people on the other side of the Chamber, that Labour Members will have no trouble in adapting their speeches on the first Bill, if they want to make them, to this debate.
	For the past 10 years I have been faithfully applying for the ballot for private Members' Bills, and in each of those years I have failed. I have tried just about every imaginable method to win, including using various combinations of my telephone number and the dates of my wedding anniversary and birthday. At last, however, I have hit upon a way of winning, and I have no objection if other hon. Members copy it. I decided to use my house number. Next year I shall again use my house number, as I am convinced that it is a winning combination.
	My Food Labelling Bill owes very much to my hon. Friend the Member for Eddisbury (Mr. O'Brien)—whom I am very pleased to see on the Opposition Front Bench—as it contains a great deal of his Food Labelling Bill. The inclusion is intentional both because his was an excellent Bill and because I wanted to build consensus based on known legislation. My Bill makes some minor amendments to the earlier Bill, to make it somewhat Euro-friendly, but I shall deal with those later.
	I am very grateful for the backing of hon. Members on both sides of the House. My Bill's supporters include the hon. Members for Stroud (Mr. Drew) and for Keighley (Mrs. Cryer), my right hon. Friend the Member for Skipton and Ripon (Mr. Curry), the hon. Member for Harlow (Mr. Rammell), my hon. Friend the Member for Wealden (Mr. Hendry), the hon. Member for Glasgow, Pollok (Mr. Davidson), my hon. Friend the Member for North-East Bedfordshire (Alistair Burt), the hon. Member for Cheltenham (Mr. Jones) and my hon. Friends the Members for South Holland and The Deepings (Mr. Hayes) and for North Shropshire (Mr. Paterson).
	Of course, hon. Members put their names to the Bill before the summer, and it has been a very exciting summer politically. Many of those who agreed to put their names to the Bill are unable to be here today because of their new appointments. In fact, it seems that I have been remarkably good at picking out the rising young turks on the Tory Benches—

Eric Forth: Was my hon. Friend referring to me?

Eric Pickles: I was referring to the young and the young at heart. My right hon. Friend did not put his name to my Bill; nevertheless I feel graced by his presence today.

Barry Gardiner: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. Does that not indicate, completely counterfactually, that the right hon. Gentleman has a heart?

Madam Deputy Speaker: That is not a point of order for the Chair.

Eric Pickles: I am sure that we are all grateful that it is not likely to be put to the vote.

Chris Bryant: He would have to be labelled.

Eric Pickles: I am not sure where we would put the label.
	Hon. Members should take heart, as some of the Bill's luck will probably reflect on them and when they rise to the dizzy heights of the Cabinet, perhaps they will owe it to their presence here today.
	The Bill is a modest measure which attempts to build an all-party consensus. I hope that hon. Members will not be disappointed to hear that I do intend not to be confrontational towards the Government, but to move the issue on and to get a decision or a promise without delay. Given the time, it is quite possible that we will have the opportunity to thrash out some of the issues today. I hope that the measure will be considered in Committee so that it can receive line-by-line scrutiny that will result in a solution. Perhaps I am slightly undermining my case by saying that I do not mind whether it is found through this legislation, but it is really important to have honest labelling of food products.
	My clear intention is the unambiguous, straightforward and, above all, honest labelling of food. Everyone agrees that there is a need for it—from the Prime Minister to past agriculture Ministers to the present Minister with responsibility for the food chain. Ministers have made speeches at National Farmers Union conferences and other gatherings saying that it is necessary because the United Kingdom has a higher standard of care of animals and we want to get on the side of our producers. Farmers, retailers and shoppers all want something better. This is an honest and straightforward attempt to achieve that.
	The Bill attempts to bring form and substance to the intention of Parliament when we passed measures to protect the welfare of animals. It is also an attempt to help the hard-pressed farming industry. Hon. Members will be aware that the first diagnosed case of foot and mouth disease was discovered in my constituency of Brentwood and Ongar in February. The outbreak was restricted to the abattoir and some surrounding farms. I saw at first hand the devastating effect of that terrible disease, not just on the farmers and the land, but on the wider rural economy. I readily concede that the effect on Brentwood and Ongar was little more than a pinprick compared with the suffering of farmers in Cumbria and Northumberland; nevertheless it is still felt today.
	Above all, the Bill attempts to empower consumers—to give them a ready avenue to make the choice that Parliament and the Government are so keen for them to exercise. I should stress that it is certainly not an attempt to restrict imports or ban methods of production that are perfectly legal throughout the EU. We took a conscious decision to apply different rules to animal husbandry in particular, and we did so for the very best of reasons. We wanted to reflect on how animals should be kept, to set clear standards in respect of how they should be reared and fed, and on movement. Of course, the methods that we used before the regulations were imposed and the law was changed are cheaper, and the methods that we have chosen for the United Kingdom are inevitably more expensive. Parliament laid down the standards and it is now up to us to ensure that the public have an opportunity to reflect those standards in their choice of purchase.
	We did not take decisions in a vacuum or lead the public; we followed public opinion, which has been very clear on this for a number of years. According to a recent survey by the Food Standards Agency, nearly 90 per cent. of consumers are concerned about the way in which animals are reared. I can think of no better way of expressing this than quoting the response by the National Pig Association to the policy commission on the future of farming. It is dated October 2001 and says:
	"Citizens expect to consume meat in this country which has been raised in high welfare and ethical standards. The Government responds to these expectations by setting standards of production, transport, welfare, etc which reflect the demands of society . . .
	At the point of sale the consumer is not provided with accurate labelling so that an informed choice can be made and full values, including welfare and ethical values, cannot be compared."
	What that means in practice is that when someone goes into a supermarket, they are not able to exercise that choice.
	Since the Bill was last presented by my hon. Friend the Member for Eddisbury, the famous red tractor scheme has been introduced. Last week I went into my local Tesco, where I have been shopping for about 10 years, and it was festooned with—

Candy Atherton: Did the hon. Gentleman have his reward card?

Eric Pickles: I did indeed. I know that the Deputy Prime Minister has some valueless card, but I carry this one and I am very pleased that it is blue.

Chris Bryant: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Eric Pickles: I cannot believe that the hon. Gentleman wants to intervene with regard to my Tesco card; still, out of sheer curiosity I give way to him.

Chris Bryant: I wonder whether the hon. Gentleman is worried by reward cards and the fact that, generally, all supermarkets are fully aware of exactly what food he eats week by week?

Eric Pickles: I am sure that the nation is delighted to know about my consumption of baked beans and British sausages. I have to say that there is a tremor of excitement in the Pickles household when the little reward card comes and I can get 20p off a packet of crisps and maybe a jar of Bovril, but I lead a relatively quiet life. The hon. Gentleman would deprive me of such things. I am happy for people to know what I buy in return for the small gifts that I am pleased to receive.
	Anyway, I went towards the meat counter and saw that it was festooned with red tractor signs. There were pictures of benign looking farmers in their shirt sleeves smiling down at me, extolling the very best of British products. I receive all sorts of promotional material from Tesco and do not doubt its commitment to the scheme. The hon. Member for Rhondda (Mr. Bryant) managed to get me to disclose that I am a regular customer and I receive correspondence not just on crisps and Bovril, but on British beef and British meat. I thought that it would be relatively easy for me to pick out a pack of British bacon, but it was not.
	An ordinary person, not someone involved in the regulations, would think that British bacon had been raised, slaughtered, cured and packed here. However, I had to spend a serious amount of time looking, almost to the point where I seemed to be loitering. I am sure that the security staff were starting to form a cordon around me because I was picking up pack upon pack. Although I managed to find local bacon close to the red tractor sign, it was surrounded by bacon from all over the world.
	I picked up a pack that I was certain was British bacon because it was described as Wiltshire cure. On closer examination, I became convinced that the unfortunate pig that supplied it had not so much as seen a postcard of Wiltshire, let alone visited that fine county.
	Tesco offers plenty of choice, but as a consumer I could not easily exercise it. I wanted to buy a product that was produced to a high standard of animal welfare. The lack of honest labelling prevented me from doing so.

Stephen O'Brien: Does my hon. Friend agree that the National Farmers Union sought to introduce and sponsor the red tractor logo because the Government had not given the previous Food Labelling Bill the opportunity to proceed? In the absence of that, a second-best—albeit welcome—scheme had to be introduced by the NFU that was to British farm standards. A product does not have to be British, but simply has to comply with those standards. That is very different from the opportunity presented by the Bill.

Eric Pickles: My hon. Friend is right. I am pleased that the NFU and the National Pig Association support my endeavour to introduce the Bill. I thank those organisations, FoodTrak and, in particular, the Food and Drink Federation for helping me to draft the Bill, including the changes that we have made to my hon. Friend's Bill.
	When we debated the previous Bill, we spent an inordinate amount of time discussing whether it was an anti-European Union measure. As my hon. Friend said at the time, that is absolutely not the case. The Bill has been carefully worded so that that will not happen. The EU law on labelling has a flexible interpretation. We have been offered guidance on that. We are not introducing covert protectionism or retaliation. Obviously, the European court will check whether it conforms with agreements.
	Since the previous debate, we have agreed that British beef should be labelled with its country of origin. The European Commission has ruled that that is legal under EU law. In France, the national pork federation and the federation of commerce and distribution have signed an agreement to allow the identification of the origins of pork sold through retail outlets in France. That reasonable measure is initially targeted at fresh meat, but more complex identification of processed products is expected to follow.
	In addition, a 3D label in Germany identifies the origin of domestically produced poultry meat, which has to meet detailed quality criteria and feed standards. A former Attorney-General has also given us the benefits of his views:
	"there is every reason to think that the Bill could be put into a form that would comply with EU law, even if it does not already."—[Official Report, 3 March 2000; Vol. 345, c. 712.]
	It would not have been possible to attract support from hon. Members on both sides of the House if the Bill had been a bit of Euro-bashing. Frankly, I would not have supported it if it had been. I also doubt whether we would have obtained the support—

Chris Bryant: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Eric Pickles: The hon. Gentleman may want to hear what I am about to say before he goes on about cards again.
	We would not have obtained the support of the hon. Member for Harlow (Mr. Rammell), who represents my neighbouring constituency and is, I think, a chairman of Labour's pro-European group.

Chris Bryant: Will the hon. Gentleman explain why he would not want to present the Bill if it were just a means of Euro-bashing?

Eric Pickles: Because I am that kind of person.
	We want to build on EU law. We should take a lead and be not just at the heart of Europe, but at its cutting edge. That is not simply my view; it is also held by the noble Lord with responsibility for the food chain. Many hon. Members will have been glued to their television sets every night during the recess watching "Newsnight". There was a fascinating discussion on 28 August, and I have a transcript of that interview with Mr. Tim Bennett of the NFU and Lord Whitty. I shall not read out the whole interview because, although riveting at the time, it would be tedious now.
	In an exchange that reflected Lord Whitty's views, Mr. Tim Bennett said:
	"If we are going to produce better food quality, produced to these exacting standards and to compete with lower prices from around the world, we have to make sure the consumer is informed about how the product is produced. Because at the moment we don't get that."
	Kirsty Wark, a presenter on the programme, asked, "Why not?" Mr. Bennett replied:
	"it's a combination possible from the retailer and from the Government. If Government wants us to go down the lines of less intensive, they have to make sure the labelling laws in this country make sure the consumer is well informed about how our food is produced."
	Kirsty Wark then asked:
	"Lord Whitty, is that something you would be doing immediately?"
	He responded:
	"The laws are by and large EU",
	to which Ms Wark said:
	"There are ways you can build on EU laws? And that's exactly what they're asking for."
	Lord Whitty said:
	"I would agree. We need to make sure the consumer is aware of the way the product has been produced. Its origin. And the environmental standard which it has met."
	Lord Whitty wants legislation to make the consumer aware of how the product is produced, its origin and the environmental standard that it has met. The Bill seeks to do nothing less. It would put into legislative form what Lord Whitty wants. "Newsnight" is not an obscure programme on which to make such an announcement. I suspect, and it grieves me to say so, that it may have reached more people than this debate will.

George Osborne: Shame.

Eric Pickles: It is indeed a shame, but no doubt the time will come when the reading of Hansard at the breakfast table will again be a common practice among the population.

Chris Bryant: When was it common practice?

Eric Pickles: In the Pickles household. After I have gone through communications from Tesco and various loyalty cards, the next thing I reach for is Hansard.
	Lord Whitty's assurance is sufficient in itself to get this measure into Committee.

Candy Atherton: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that for us in Cornwall, food labelling is particularly important. Cornish clotted cream and Cornish pasties on any table in Cornish households are the subject of much debate. How would the Bill affect those households?

Eric Pickles: I am certain that Cornish householders keen to support local produce or higher animal welfare standards will be in a better position to do so as a result of the Bill. Various rules exist within the European Union with regard to regional identification. That is a building block that the Bill enhances. However, the Bill is specific about enhancing methods of production and environmental standards and about country of origin.

Bill Wiggin: When the Cornish purchaser is buying clotted cream, what percentage of the milk in that cream will be from Cornwall? Perhaps the Bill would be a way of finding out whether the milk used is imported or from the United Kingdom.

Eric Pickles: That is a very good point. It marries my point and that of the hon. Member for Falmouth and Camborne (Ms Atherton) with an eloquence that I could not match.

Candy Atherton: So smooth.

Eric Pickles: Well, I am in politics.
	A regulatory set-up in the EU covers whether a product is Cornish clotted cream or clotted cream produced by the Cornish method. My Bill would demonstrate to the Cornish purchaser—as the Bill introduced by my hon. Friend the Member for Eddisbury would have done—that the product was indeed a product of the United Kingdom, or at least of England and Wales.

Barry Gardiner: Does the hon. Gentleman accept that under the existing legislation and the EU legislation on food labelling, food is considered to have been manufactured or produced in the country in which it last underwent a treatment or process resulting in substantial change. The hon. Member for Leominster (Mr. Wiggin) queried whether Cornish clotted cream would have to contain Cornish milk to make it Cornish. Under the existing legislation it would be Cornish if it had undergone its last major substantial process in Cornwall.

Eric Pickles: That is right. The Bill would make things transparent. It is not about banning things or stopping them happening but about honesty in labelling.

Barry Gardiner: The hon. Gentleman has been extremely kind in giving way on many occasions this morning. Does he accept that many people find the Bill disappointing precisely because it does not seek to prescribe certain elements? It would not inform people about the problematic ingredients to which many people have allergic reactions, such as nuts. Many people thought that the Bill would provide that if food contained nuts, that would have to be specified on the label. It is a source of great disappointment that the Bill does not seek to tackle something that is a very real problem for many people in this country.

Eric Pickles: Those issues are covered by other labelling regulations, but I am not a proud man and if the hon. Gentleman wants to enhance my Bill, I will willingly accept his help. If he wants to help the Bill through the Committee, I will lobby the Labour Whips. I will have more to say about nuts and potato crisps shortly.

Stephen O'Brien: The critical question that was raised by the hon. Members for Falmouth and Camborne (Ms Atherton) and for Brent, North (Mr. Gardiner) underpins the intent behind the Bill. As I understand it, the Bill is not just to do with the latest substantial-change treatment to the raw material—or to the material in the form in which it is received at the plant—as is the case under current legislation. It is to do with the overall content. We want consumers to be confident about what they are buying. Knowing the provenance of a product, as well as being aware of the standards of production that led to the last substantial change, gives consumers confidence. Knowing where the milk came from is as important, if one wants to be sure that it has been treated at the original source in a way that will give consumers confidence, as the latest substantial-change treatment. Hence, a main ingredient is defined as anything that is more than 25 per cent. of the content. I hope that helps to address the points that were raised.

Eric Pickles: My hon. Friend is quite right. During the last debate on this issue, we spent some considerable time on this almost de minimis point. My hon. Friend was quite keen to ensure that we do not become bogged down in clotted cream or shepherd's pie, as it were. He reminds me that I should have said that the remarks of the hon. Member for Brent, North (Mr. Gardiner) came close to protectionism and the desire to ban imports. I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his intervention because it has taken a couple of pages off my speech. [Interruption.] He put it far better than I could.

Chris Bryant: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Eric Pickles: I do not think I will ever resist giving way to the hon. Gentleman.

Chris Bryant: I thank the hon. Gentleman, but I am a little frightened by that comment.

Eric Pickles: So you should be.

Chris Bryant: The point about 25 per cent. content is very significant. Let us consider lemon tart, or tarte au citron as they call it in other countries, not to mention Marks and Spencer and Sainsbury, although not in Tesco. Actually, to most of us in Wales, it is lemon meringue pie. Clearly, lemons never constitute 25 per cent. of a lemon meringue pie, however it is made. None the less, a lemon meringue pie without lemons, or without significant lemon taste, or when one cannot identify where the lemons come from, might be a lesser lemon tart.

Eric Pickles: I am not certain about most things in life, but I am certain that someone who wishes to sell a lemon tart—or even a tarte au citron—tends to put the description on the label. What we should be concerned about is making sure that what is on the label is honest. There is no reason why the label should not display the fact that the lemons are Israeli, or Palestinian, or come from Spain. That seems perfectly reasonable.
	I am beginning to develop the view that we should not get bogged down in clotted cream, shepherd's pie or tarte au citron.

Chris Bryant: It is a nice idea, though.

Eric Pickles: I suppose it is—but I have been on a diet, and I am a born-again muesli man myself. Let us move on.
	A number of things have happened since our last debate. We have had the voluntary code, and, as my hon. Friend the Member for Eddisbury has rightly pointed out, the farm assurance scheme. I think that that has been a success, to some degree, in attracting people's attention and increasing awareness of the quality of UK products. That is quite right. Indeed, it has been said from the Government Front Bench that British food remains the best in the world.
	However, confusion still exists. We have managed to increase awareness, but not the way in which consumers can act on that awareness. Consumer and farming organisations are still demanding a fairer labelling system, backed by the law.
	The second development is less welcome—the outbreaks of classical swine fever and foot and mouth disease. As I have said, although my constituency fortunately escaped classical swine fever, it did suffer from foot and mouth. That was an awful experience, devastating not only for the people directly involved but for the wider community.
	One of the features of previous agriculture debates in which I have participated has been the analysis of farm incomes published at this time of year by the accountants Deloitte & Touche. The October figures for this year have just been released, which is timely. It is shocking to hear that on a typical 500-acre family-run farm, annual profits have decreased from £80,000 to only £2,500 in five years. Deloitte & Touche estimates that in the year 2000, the average farmer's salary was only £8,000 a year.
	Total income from farming for the year 2000 has fallen by 27 per cent. in real terms to £1.88 billion—down by more than two thirds over the past five years. To give some kind of comparison, I must tell the House that in 1996 it was more than £5 billion. Bank borrowing by the agriculture industry continues to rise, amounting to some £10 billion, while investment levels on farms are the lowest since the early 1970s.
	Most shocking of all, the National Farmers Union estimates that about 47,400 farmers and farm workers have left the industry in England and Wales over the past two years. I know about that from my local farming sector. I met its representatives in early October and they talked about their sons' and daughters' reluctance to enter the farming industry. In my area, the tradition of farming continuing down the generations is, in some cases, about to end.
	The most dramatic effects have been on the pig industry. Over the past 10 years, the size of the UK herd has fallen sharply, and now stands at its lowest level for more than 50 years. Imports of pigmeat have consistently risen. Between 1994 and 1999, the UK was a net exporter of fresh pork in every year except one. Last year, the position was reversed and the home producers could not sustain their share of the market. In short, the retailer and the food service sector in general are importing food produced to a lower specification.
	I emphasise the fact that my Bill does not seek to outlaw that, but simply to ensure that the purchaser has a right to know which products conform to the standards that the British consumer has long come to expect.

Angela Watkinson: rose—

Eric Pickles: I give way to my hon. Friend and neighbour.

Angela Watkinson: The hon. Gentleman and I do, indeed, share a constituency boundary. A farm in my constituency, only one mile from that boundary, was one of the earliest sufferers from foot and mouth disease. Does my hon. Friend agree that it is important that the Bill is non-discriminatory towards imports of products of any origin that find themselves in our shops? It is the honesty in labelling that will enable the customer to understand the variation in prices, which reflect the variation in standards of production. Production costs in this country are higher because of the high standards of animal husbandry. If customers know where the products come from, they will have an explanation as to why some imports are cheaper than some home-produced items. Customers will know that although they are paying a little more for a product, they are getting a higher-quality product. Is that not why honesty is so important?

Eric Pickles: My hon. Friend is right. The Bill is about quality and quality assurance. It is about ensuring that customers are not misled into purchasing what they think is local bacon, because it is called "Wiltshire cure", only to find that it is more likely to have come from Czechoslovakia or Poland. I am happy for people to purchase Czechoslovakian or Polish bacon; I have no problem with that—but I want people to be able to know that they are purchasing bacon that has been produced in conformity with the quality assurance and the standards of the United Kingdom.

Chris Bryant: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Eric Pickles: Of course. The hon. Gentleman has a free pass, so far as I am concerned. Any time he wants to come in, he is most welcome.

Chris Bryant: The good thing about free passes is that as they are free, one does not feel one needs to use them all the time, just to get good value.
	I was just wondering whether the hon. Gentleman was aware that Czechoslovakia is now the Czech Republic. It is not one country any more.

Eric Pickles: The hon. Gentleman is, of course, most helpful—and absolutely right. I was not speaking in a strictly geographical sense. I am very much aware that there is the Czech Republic and the other part of what was Czechoslovakia, and all the other places in eastern Europe. The point that I was making is that the Bill is about ensuring that standards of husbandry can be assured.
	The figures that I read out from the Deloitte & Touche report do not entirely take into account the full effects of classical swine fever and foot and mouth. I am afraid that if we have a similar agriculture debate this time next year, the situation is likely to look even grimmer. I hope I have said enough to show that the estimated cumulative loss to the UK pig industry between 1998 and the end of 1999 was about £340 million.
	The importance of the pig industry should never be underestimated. As the distinguished journalist Digby Scott—the winner of this year's David Black award—said when receiving his award at an event on Wednesday attended by several hon. Members:
	"If you picture the countryside as an enormous inverted pyramid, then pig farming is that tiny pin prick at the very bottom—helping support the huge economic structure above of leisure, tourism, retailing, manufacturing and government."
	The effect of foot and mouth disease in my constituency completely convinced me of that. I was surprised that so many rural businesses and so much diversification of farmland depended ultimately on cattle and pig production.
	The foot and mouth restrictions did not only affect a tiny farming community: they went deep into the countryside and deep into the suburbs. The hon. Member for Falmouth and Camborne and I attended a meeting about waterways where we were told about the effects of foot and mouth disease on our inland waterways and about the impact on tourism. We must not underestimate the importance of basic farming production for the infrastructure and social cohesion of the countryside and the general community.
	Although I have slightly more time than I anticipated as the first Bill we were to have debated was withdrawn, I think I am in danger of being rather self-indulgent in terms of time, so I shall turn quickly to the clauses. The purpose of clause 2 is to ensure that food labels carry particulars of the country or countries of origin of each of the major ingredients of the food.
	Clause 3 is concerned with production standards. The intention is that where food production standards are lower than those that apply in England and Wales reference must be made to that on the label.
	Clause 4 is similar to provisions in the Bill promoted by my hon. Friend the Member for Eddisbury, but I draw hon. Members' attention to subsection (1) which sets out rules on packaging, and anticipates the growth of web-based and bar-code information systems. The hon. Member for Brent, North expressed deep concern about notes, and paragraph (e) would address that problem. It would ensure that consumers can obtain information on a specific product, either through the web or from bar codes. Hon. Members will be familiar with the little price guns that we see in Safeway, Waitrose or Sainsbury; they contain much more information than merely the price and the product name.
	The hon. Member for Hendon (Mr. Dismore) who was in his place, but is now on the Treasury Bench—

David Drew: He is never still.

Eric Pickles: Indeed. The hon. Member for Hendon will like my next point. It is possible to take one of those guns, point it at a packet of Walkers crisps and find out which field the potatoes were picked from. That is obviously of some importance with regard to pesticide controls and the like. Within a very short time it will be possible for people to use such programmed systems, so that someone who has a nut allergy or does not want to buy products from a certain country or wants to obtain particular products will be able to use those guns in supermarkets. They will be an enormous help—

Stephen O'Brien: rose—

Eric Pickles: My hon. Friend is about to enlighten us. I cannot wait.

Stephen O'Brien: The technology exists; indeed it existed 18 months ago. The hon. Member for Stroud (Mr. Drew) has also done a great deal of work in this area, and he and I have talked to some of the corporate entities who are at the leading edge. There is already a link between everything in my hon. Friend's Bill, the animal welfare standards and the food safety regime: computer programmes can help to identify a product on the supermarket shelf—however it has been treated and presented—back to the field, the animal or the farm whence it came. For instance, Swedishtasty.com will explain exactly where a piece of beef came from—[Laughter.] Swedishtasty.com is a particularly good site—I recommend it strongly. It is a good example. I intervened because my hon. Friend is right and I endorse his point that the Bill offers an opportunity to enhance and bring together the various strands to deliver benefits to producers and consumers alike.

Eric Pickles: I am most grateful to my hon. Friend. I had heard that he was a great devotee of the website Swedishtasty.com—I was delighted to discover that it was about meatballs—[Laughter.] Perhaps we should gently draw a veil over that point.
	The proposals will bring honesty into labelling. They attempt to build on EU legislation, and will offer help to the farming industry without asking for subsidy or unfair advantage. The Bill will empower the consumer to make informed purchasing choices and gives strength to measures that the House has previously adopted with enthusiasm.
	I commend the Bill to the House.

Barry Gardiner: I am delighted to speak on the Bill. I compliment the hon. Member for Brentwood and Ongar (Mr. Pickles) on his tenacity in holding the House captivated for the past 50 minutes. I congratulate him on his good fortune in securing such a significant place in the private Members' ballot. I am glad that he has let the rest of the House into his secret. I shall make sure that I enter my house number in the ballot next year in order to secure similar good fortune.
	I begin by looking at the issue of nuts—a cause of great concern in relation to food labelling regulations. Nuts are the most prevalent of the allergens in food that can cause significant trauma to people. For many, many years a sizeable lobby has pressed for better legislation to ensure that the labelling of food products is simple and clear.
	I welcome the hon. Gentleman's remarks about transparency and honesty in labelling. That is of fundamental importance. I am sure that if the hon. Gentleman had known of them, he would have been extremely supportive of the questions that I put earlier this year to the former Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food asking what steps he was taking to ensure standardisation of food labels so that universally recognised symbols could be adopted for descriptions of foods that, first, contain nuts; secondly, and equally important, do not contain nuts and verifiably have not done so in any part of their processing; and, thirdly, might contain traces of nuts. That is the clarity and honesty in food labelling for which many people have been calling.
	Earlier this year, I received from my constituents the Doran family correspondence that says:
	"I find it so frustrating that so many issues take top place on the agenda when so little people are actually affected, i.e.: beef labelling, GM foods. I am not minimising the anguish of those people who are affected by them but it feels that the issue of nut allergy is left on the shelf because the tide of public opinion hasn't yet knocked on its door.
	My son could die if he ate something with a trace of nut, or nut oil in it. He is four years old. We can't leave him with family and friends because it is too easy to forget that this simple food could kill him. But it would be far easier if we knew that anyone who was minding him could look at a product and know straight away if it had nuts or not—and if so, it should state if it is nut free."
	I could quote much more extensively from correspondence from the Dorans and others.

Andrew Dismore: I am aware of that problem because my nephew, Adam, suffers from the same allergy. It is extremely difficult to buy Easter eggs, for example, because even when one thinks that one is buying pure chocolate it can contain a trace of nut that is often not put on the label. It is a difficult problem, especially for uncles trying to buy treats for their young nephews.

Barry Gardiner: That is yet another example of the importance of this matter. As my hon. Friend says, it is not just a social problem—uncles buying treats for their nephews—it can be critical for allergy sufferers.
	The hon. Member for Brentwood and Ongar was good enough to say that if improvements can be made to the Bill in Committee, he will be open to accepting them. If the Bill receives a fair wind and passage today, I hope that he will be true to his word.

Eric Pickles: I wish to be absolutely straight with the hon. Gentleman and confirm that point: yes, I would very much welcome his suggestion.

Barry Gardiner: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman.
	There is hope, even if the Bill were not to get a fair passage today, because I understand that the European Commission considered the matter recently. The Minister of State, Department of Health, my right hon. Friend the Member for Barrow and Furness (Mr. Hutton), and other Ministers have been pressing the Commission to take action on this matter for some time and the Government have been most insistent on some exemptions to ingredients lists. In September, the Commission introduced a proposal to ensure that allergens were listed and, if the proposal is adopted, nuts and other such allergens will have to be listed wherever they are used. That will be a big step forward in improving transparency and honesty in labelling.
	I hope that my right hon. Friend the Minister will take note of what has been said in the Chamber this morning: that it is not good enough simply to note when a product contains nuts; it is equally important to say when it does not and when it might. The doubt that can arise from food labelling is extremely worrying to parents and other carers.

Angela Watkinson: One of my grandchildren has a nut allergy and I am well trained in reading the information on sweet labels. Sometimes, however, the print is so small that I need a magnifying glass, which I do not happen to carry with me when I shop. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that it would be much more useful to have the simple phrase "nut free" rather than having to trawl through a list of ingredients in search of the words:
	"May contain traces of nuts."

Barry Gardiner: I certainly agree with the hon. Lady in the case of products that can be certified nut free. I hope that she agrees that, in cases where there is no significant use of nuts in the production process, yet where one sector of the kitchen where it is produced makes food containing traces of nuts, it is important that the food product that officially contains no nuts should not state that it is nut free, because the dangers of cross-contamination in such a production process can prove fatal.

Stephen O'Brien: Has the hon. Gentleman compared the timetable of this Bill, if it is given a fair passage and is successful in entering our domestic law, with discussion of the matter within the EU, which has been rightly and fairly highlighted? Given the moving and important story of the four-year-old in his constituency, it would appear that time is of the essence and that we must look at the fastest track to ensure that safety for consumers, particularly those with allergies, is put on our statute book to instil the highest possible confidence.

Barry Gardiner: I have certainly considered the time scale in which the EU might be able to act. Discussions on country of origin labelling began in May of this year at a meeting of the CODEX committee on food labelling. They are expected to continue at the committee's meeting next year, but in the meantime the agency will review its guidance on country of origin labelling to ensure that it tackles that and other issues that concern consumers. The question is, what will that guidance be and how quickly can it be implemented? I understand that it will be implemented before the next meeting of the CODEX committee.

Stephen O'Brien: Although guidance is important, the hon. Gentleman's earlier comments can be underpinned by the need for confidence. Above all, his arguments seemed to suggest that he supported the necessary statutory regime that could enforce that level of confidence. Guidance may be welcome, but I urge him to look carefully at the opportunity that the Bill presents to ensure that that is in place well before—given its track record on the issue—the EU's programme for determination of this subject.

Barry Gardiner: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his remarks. Judging from the consensus that appears to exist in the Chamber this morning, the correct labelling of food products to denote potential allergens in them has all-party support. Actually, it has cross-party support—although we have not been joined by other Opposition parties this morning—and we would all like to see it put into legislation as fast as possible.
	I now come to the elements of the Bill addressed by the hon. Member for Brentwood and Ongar, particularly labelling with the country of origin. First, however, I wish to ask the hon. Gentleman why he adopted specific interpretations in clause 1. One of my questions arises from bitter personal experience. Clause 1 says:
	"'food' is to be interpreted in accordance with section 1 of the Food Safety Act 1990, but does not include . . . sea fish or shellfish listed in Schedule 1 to the Regulations".
	I proudly claim the distinction of being the only human being ever to be mugged by a clam in New York.

Julian Lewis: Was it the Ku-Klux Klam?

Barry Gardiner: No, I said clam. It occurred some years ago—[Interruption.] I know that the House will have some mirth at my expense this morning, but as John Bunyan would put it,
	"My marks and scars I carry with me to be a witness that I have fought His battles who will now be my rewarder."
	Some years ago in New York, I was invited to lunch by a client. Despite what happened, that client was and still is a very good friend. He asked me whether I liked clams and I said that I had never tried raw clams but that I had sampled clam chowder when I lived in Boston. He insisted that I have some clams and also asked whether I liked oysters. I said that I had never tried oysters so he ordered half a dozen clams and half a dozen oysters. We sat down and ate these things. I must say that I found them execrable.

Candy Atherton: Will my hon. Friend give way?

Barry Gardiner: Before I give way, I must say that they were not Cornish oysters.

Candy Atherton: I assure my hon. Friend that I will deliver to him personally half a dozen Helford River oysters. I am sure that he will find them very enjoyable.

Barry Gardiner: I thank my hon. Friend for that offer. However, my experience that day left me resigned to never touching the things again.
	A few hours later when I was with another friend in New Jersey, I began to feel extremely sick. While retiring to the bathroom, as it was called, I passed out, knocked my head against a marble staircase, cracked open my skull and ended up spending the night undergoing CAT scans and goodness knows what else in a New Jersey hospital. I dread to think what the health care I received in America cost my travel insurers. The whole experience was extremely disconcerting.

Andrew Dismore: In the light of my hon. Friend's experience, will he tell us whether he had been drinking spirits at the time? It is now a well known medical fact that drinking spirits with raw shellfish can cause a very bad reaction. Indeed, many good fish restaurants in London now say on the menu that one should not drink spirits if one is ordering raw shellfish

Barry Gardiner: I thank my hon. Friend for that information. I have only two things to say to him. The first is that I was not drinking spirits at the time. The second is that, given the choice between eating shellfish and drinking spirits, I certainly know which course is distinctly preferable. I am a good Scotsman, so my hon. Friend need not ask any more.
	The fact that sea fish and shellfish are not considered to be food for the purposes of the Bill would cause many people concern. Perhaps the hon. Member for Brentwood and Ongar will consider that point.

Eric Pickles: I commiserate with the hon. Gentleman. A platter of fruits de mer in Rouen had a similar effect on me, so I sympathise with him.
	Although there is some farming of shellfish and fish, they are mostly collected by hunter-gatherers. That is why shellfish and sea fish are not covered by the Bill. The hon. Gentleman refers to safety and to the definition of ingredients but, as I said earlier, let us get the Bill into Committee. The Government no doubt have strong views on that point, so they might table an amendment to deal with it.

Barry Gardiner: The hon. Gentleman has been extremely gracious in accepting interventions and in recognising that other suggestions may be introduced into his Bill at later stages. The House is grateful to him for the open way in which he has dealt with these matters.

Stephen O'Brien: The hon. Gentleman has told us a shaggy clam story, but I hope that he will not recount too many similar experiences or long stories. If the Bill is to go into Committee, we need to make progress this morning.

Barry Gardiner: I hope that the hon. Gentleman will appreciate that it is always my intention on a Friday morning to examine the Bill before us and to give it a fair degree of scrutiny. Instead of Members urging me or anyone else in the Chamber to clam up, I hope that they will look not at the clam but at the oyster and seek to find the pearls of wisdom therein.
	Another aspect of clause 1 concerns me. It relates to the interpretation of the term "major ingredient". It is a serious matter, because the clause states that
	"'major ingredient' means an ingredient which forms more than 25 per cent. by weight of a food".
	When I thought about the fact that a "major ingredient" had to form more than 25 per cent., I referred to "Dod's Parliamentary Companion 2002". I wanted to assure myself that the Conservative party formed a major ingredient of the House of Commons. I thought that it would be absolutely borderline but, on checking, I found that there were not 160 Conservative Members, as I had remembered, but 166. That means that, by a margin of two, they just form more than 25 per cent. of the House, so they can claim that they constitute a major ingredient.
	Had I any doubts on that point, I know from looking at the hon. Member for Brentwood and Ongar that I need not have worried. The definition refers not to forming more than 25 per cent. but to forming
	"more than 25 per cent. by weight of food".
	On that ground alone, the hon. Gentleman and other Conservative Members are easily able to satisfy the rubric. I am happy about that.

Eric Pickles: The hon. Gentleman might have seen me pointing to him in a threatening manner. Considering the amount of weight I have lost, he should have offered me some encouragement instead of mocking my bulk. We make the tasty part of this particular meal.

Barry Gardiner: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for taking my remarks in the good humour with which they were intended.
	Clause 3 is headed "Labelling: production standards". In it, the hon. Gentleman has hit on something that is of great concern to many of my constituents in Brent, North and, no doubt, to many of his. The point relates to the welfare of livestock and the treatment of animals. The British public are concerned that the standards of animal welfare that we wish to maintain in this country are not universally respected in the rest of the world or, indeed, in the rest of the European Community.
	The Government make representations in the European Union on issues of animal welfare, and I am sure that many of us share the concern that we have not yet established a regime throughout Europe that we would consider matches this country's welfare standards for animal husbandry. There is more that we could do even in this country and this clause identifies an important point. Consumers want to be happy with the standards for the treatment of animals in the rearing and husbandry process. That is a matter not of vegetarianism, simply of animal welfare. People who are rightly happy to eat meat want to know that the animals have been treated in a proper and humane way. I welcome that element of the hon. Gentleman's Bill.
	I have certain concerns about the Bill. Scope for such national action as the hon. Gentleman seeks to introduce is limited by European law. It constrains any restriction on trade within the single market under the interpretation from Europe. If the Bill were adopted, it would inevitably be overturned by the European Court and could result in the UK being obliged to pay substantial compensation to affected interests. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will be able satisfy the House that those criticisms of his Bill are not correct. I fear that he may not. I applaud the hon. Gentleman's willingness to consider other aspects that may be introduced into his Bill at a later stage and his desire to achieve open, honest and transparent labelling, especially on the welfare of livestock. Elements of the Bill are worthy, and I wish him well with it.

George Osborne: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Brentwood and Ongar (Mr. Pickles). As the candidate for Tatton, I followed his general election campaign closely. We were pleased to see him returned on election night, and I am pleased that he won a high place in the ballot for private Members' Bills and chose to reintroduce this one, albeit altered to take into account the points raised by the hon. Member for Brent, North (Mr. Gardiner), who is now leaving the Chamber, about its compatibility with European law. I am glad that my hon. Friend is continuing with the Bill that my neighbour and good Friend the hon. Member for Eddisbury (Mr. O'Brien) introduced in the last Parliament.
	There is no doubt that the food labelling Bill that my hon. Friend the Member for Eddisbury introduced struck a chord with the farming community and Members of Parliament like me who represent rural communities. There is great anger in the farming community that many of the high animal welfare and hygiene standards to which they adhere are not adhered to in other EU countries, and that they are placed at a disadvantage in the marketplace.
	There is a sense among farmers that if consumers were given a real choice—if they could go into the supermarket and choose good-quality food produced from animals raised to a high standard of animal welfare—they would make that choice. The problem is that they do not have the information. That is why the Bill is so important.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Brentwood and Ongar rehearsed many of the tragic statistics about the state of farming. I recently met farmers in Chelford, which is a large agricultural market in the south of my constituency. Anyone who meets farmers these days cannot doubt how desperate the situation is for them. The total income from farming has fallen by two thirds in the past five years. Deloitte and Touche estimates that the average annual salary for farmers is just £8,000 a year. Bank borrowing by agriculture amounts to £10 billion a year. Investment levels are at their lowest since the 1970s.
	The dire situation has been brought about by a number of factors. If we are honest, we should accept that we in the House have little control over some of them. One is the high value of the pound relative to the euro. There is not much that we can do about that, except perhaps to reduce the dependency in the long term of farming on subsidies from Europe and the green pound. The second such factor is the low value of commodity prices across the world—

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. The Bill that we are discussing is about food labelling.

George Osborne: Factors that we cannot control have damaged our agriculture, but one thing that we could do is introduce this Bill, which would make a huge difference to the state of farming. The food labelling laws are a mess. If you went into a supermarket, Madam Deputy Speaker, and saw my hon. Friend the Member for Brentwood and Ongar loitering by the bacon counter, you would find what he finds. You could pick up a pound of bacon that says "British", but the pig may have been raised in Holland in a sow stall or with a tether, practices that this House banned a decade ago. It could have been slaughtered in another European country that does not have the same slaughtering regulations that the House has introduced. The pigmeat could have been brought to this country, seasoned or smoked and packaged and then labelled "British Bacon". That is absurd.
	When consumers come across my hon. Friend loitering by the bacon counter, like him, they are confused. They may want to buy bacon from pigs raised in humane conditions, but they cannot make that informed decision. They may want to buy bacon or other meat that has been slaughtered humanely, but they cannot make that informed decision. They may want to support British agriculture, but they cannot because the labelling laws cause confusion. The Bill would end that confusion.
	It is striking how broadly the Bill introduced by my hon. Friend the Member for Eddisbury and this one have been welcomed by both consumer and farming groups. It was my dubious pleasure to be a special adviser—now a dirty word—to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food for several years under the previous Government. It was remarkable how infrequently consumer organisations and farming bodies agreed. The Bill has a broad measure of agreement.
	In the notes helpfully provided, at least for Conservative Members, it is clear that the Bill is supported by the National Farmers Union, the Country Landowners Association and the National Pig Association, but also by the Consumers Association. The Consumers Association said:
	"This Bill is a step in the right direction. . . . Consumers need the ability to properly choose what they eat—that means country of origin being clearly labelled on food. . . . Country of origin labelling needs to be specific so that consumers can make effective choices about what they buy—and where it comes from. This means that any general 'EU' or 'non-EU' label would not go far enough. For example, such a label would not have enabled customers to choose whether or not to eat Belgian meat during the recent dioxin scare."
	The Bill thus has a broad measure of support from consumers and farming organisations.
	One striking thing about the farming community, as those who represent it in the House know, is how well informed farmers are about decisions made by the House and the Government. That is partly because their income is hugely dependent on the decisions of the Government. They are a politically well-informed group in our society. They follow our proceedings. Not many people will be following them today, but the farming community will. What we say here will be circulated in agricultural markets, NFU newsletters and so on.
	Farmers were disappointed when, for reasons that they did not fully understand, the Government squashed the previous Bill in the last Parliament. They will be disappointed and will not understand if the Government squash this Bill in this Parliament. This is an important Bill. So many things that we do to help farming and for which the industry asks are expensive, involve billions of pounds of subsidies, and require complex European negotiations and difficult regulations. But this is simple to do, works with the grain of the market and consumer choice, is welcomed by consumers and would do a great deal for farmers. I hope that the Bill gets the support that it deserves.

David Drew: I apologise to the hon. Member for Brentwood and Ongar (Mr. Pickles), as I was taken aback when I saw him on my screen launching his Bill. This follows yesterday evening, when some 400 hon. Members either tried to prevent my Adjournment debate or helped it to take place. Procedurally, it has been an interesting 24 hours, but I apologise to the hon. Gentleman for missing his initial pearls of wisdom.
	I am a sponsor of the Bill, and I make no apology for saying that I support it. The cause of food labelling needs to be advanced in this place. I was not as active as I should have been with the Bill introduced by the hon. Member for Eddisbury (Mr. O'Brien), and I shall mention why that failed. However, the need for food labelling—in the form of this Bill, future legislation here or European activities—is proven and the rationale for bringing forward greater controls could not be shown more straightforwardly than by the recent crises in this country.
	The previous Bill failed because it was deemed to be in contravention of the treaty of Rome, principally articles 28 to 30. If that is the case, we need to talk to Europe about how we can improve its regulations and legislative powers, as well as what we choose to do here. We must also consider how easy it is to define how we wish to label items. It is accepted that consumers want as much information as they can handle. Even if they do not want to see it on the packaging, there will be occasions when they will want to get information on what is in their products and who produces them.
	Rather than getting into the obscurantism of defining exactly in law what needs to be done, we should accept the principle that it is good for the producer and the consumer that we label as effectively as we can and that the only thing that should limit us in doing that is the means by which we can communicate the information.
	Three questions must be asked about the proposal. First, can it be done, and, a related issue, why did the previous Bill fail? Secondly, what are the benefits of the Bill and who are the beneficiaries? Thirdly, what can we do in this place and elsewhere? I wish to address the third point.
	The hon. Member for Eddisbury has talked about those who stand to gain from their advancement of the software and their knowledge of IT, which could make it possible to label more effectively. He and I have met the company i-label. Previously, providing appropriate traceability from the raw to the finished product, whether it was animal, grain or whatever, was seen as difficult. Software and databases are now capable of handling such complex information, and that is why I am more than happy to support the Bill.
	The two parts of the Bill involve country of origin labelling and corporate standards. There will always be a debate about how much people want to know exactly what was produced in this country and not elsewhere. I am glad to see my hon. Friend the Member for Falmouth and Camborne (Ms Atherton) in the Chamber, as she agrees that people are more interested in the localisation of food rather than the nation state.
	I will not criticise farmers—many of whom I call friends—but one reason why our farming industry has not done as well as others is that it has not worked hard enough in marketing and producing locally through co-operatives to give local consumers what they seem to want: the knowledge that good-quality food has been produced locally. If we can pull those things together, British farming can go forward.

Stephen O'Brien: I entirely endorse what the hon. Gentleman says about branding and a sense of identity and confidence. Regionalisation and localisation of source and production must be the right way forward, and there is a derogation within EU law and our domestic food labelling regulations that enable that to take place here and in France where products can be described as coming from Perigord. Country of origin is important because it relates to the jurisdiction of law and regulation in terms of the standards of production. If someone knows that a chicken has come from Thailand, they will know that there have been stories that many hormones have been used there that would be banned in this country. It is right for consumers to have the right to know the country of origin and the EU aspect of regionalisation would not apply in those circumstances.

David Drew: I accept that, and some of us feel strongly that we need to sort out the import situation. I say that with the best of intentions; I do not think that what happened in the past was unacceptable. I attended a briefing at the Labour party conference organised by the National Farmers Union, at which the union's campaign on fair labelling was introduced. It was interesting to hear the different agencies describe honestly some of the problems that they have with searching and impounding. Sometimes, they cannot impound; there are checks and balances within the system, but there are also loopholes. The country of origin issue will not go away, because the import problem will not go away.
	Standards have been driven up throughout the EU, and that is a jolly good thing. However, imports from third countries can cause difficulties. We need standardisation but we cannot do that alone. We may be an island but, in some respects, that can lead to more difficulties because there are so many points of entry to this country. There will never be enough resources to constrain what we do not want to see.

Eric Pickles: Will the hon. Gentleman confirm that there is nothing in the Bill that prevents anything being imported from anywhere in the world? It is merely about honesty in labelling.

David Drew: That is absolutely right; I was merely making the point that the Bill should not be seen in isolation—nor should any legislation. The Bill must be part of a process of ensuring that people are buying what they think they are buying, and that what they eat is safe and of the quality that they expect. All such matters must come together.
	We on the Labour Benches can feel some pride in the fact that, through the work of the Food Standards Agency, matters outside this country are moving in our direction. I spoke a week last Thursday—I am not sure whether other Members present today also attended the debate—in the debate on the European Food Authority. Although I am not the greatest pro-European on the Labour Benches, I recognise that there is much to be said for standardisation of foodstuffs across the EU, and I take pride in supporting the establishment of the authority. Through the operation of the Food Standards Agency, this country is very much in the lead in that respect. As I said then, the agency plays a pro-active role, and I would like that to be extended.
	I have talked to representatives of the agency about labelling. Obviously, it must be careful, because it is an agency of Government. However, it is fair to say that it is fairly relaxed about the need to consider standardising produce. It has launched its own investigation into some of the assurance schemes to ensure that they are what they claim to be. Therefore, the agency is engaged in the area.
	We are a pioneer, if not the pioneer, of food standards agencies. People from all parts of Europe—indeed, the world—are calling in FSA representatives to find out exactly what we are doing and how we are doing it. If that can help us advance the way in which we consider foodstuffs in Europe, that can only be good. Such action will have to be taken through the route of the wonderfully named Codex Alimentaris. I know little more about it than what it seems to do, but it needs to be transparent and able to ensure that all of Europe moves in the same direction because what happens elsewhere has an impact on us.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Brent, North (Mr. Gardiner) had to leave the Chamber, but his comments on nutrition and why the Bill does not cater for it are worth bearing in mind. Having talked to the FSA, I know, as will my right hon. Friend the Minister, that the matter causes the Government some concern. More and more people are interested in driving up nutritional standards, but the way in which we do that is subject to some debate, both inside and outside the Government.
	When the chairman of the FSA, Sir John Krebs, recently addressed the all-party group on food and hygiene, he was honest enough to say that nutrition was one area in which the agency had made less progress than it had hoped to make, and certainly less than it wanted to make. We must learn from that that there are two extremes in the matter: the nanny state, in which everyone is told what they should or should not eat, and a state in which everyone can eat what they like and take the consequences of it. We have heard some amusing interludes on that point.

Stephen O'Brien: The hon. Gentleman has raised an interesting and important point. One report produced by the Education and Employment Committee and the Education Sub-Committee, on which I served in the last Parliament, was on school meals. It centred on nutritional value and the information required to help not only teachers but, most importantly, parents to choose to encourage their children to eat certain food. That choice could be made as a result of labelling. The hon. Gentleman makes an important point on the culture of information on nutritional value, and labelling would go a long way to support that.

David Drew: I agree with the hon. Gentleman. We need to approach the matter from several angles; it concerns not just food but health, which is why I am pleased to see my right hon. Friend on the Front Bench, and education. The FSA is at the forefront of efforts in this area. If the Bill can in any way assist us in our relations in Europe, that can only be a good thing.
	I cannot do anything other than use this opportunity to talk about another issue raised by Sir John Krebs in response to questioning: genetically modified organisms. I have a long track record of being against GMOs, but taking an exact stance is becoming increasingly difficult as the world moves on.
	The issue is interesting because it concerns not just the product but labelling. The FSA has had some difficulty because it has stuck to the perceived line of 1 per cent. tolerance. Some people will know what I am talking about and some may not. Basically, if a food contains less than 1 per cent. of any GMO, it can be labelled GMO-free. That causes some of us difficulty, as such foods are patently not always GMO-free. Technology is not yet capable of assessing not only the traceability of GMOs but the process by which such organisms are created. That is a question of derivatives. I gather that tests are being undertaken, so the issue might become clearer. That shows the difficulty of labelling and where dividing lines should be drawn, but it is no excuse for not labelling.
	I know of very few consumers in Stroud who do not want to know whether products contain GMOs. Such knowledge might not make a difference to their consumption. I find it disappointing that people talk a lot about having the right to choose in the matter of animal welfare, but do not always choose the right way. I would like people to choose animal welfare-friendly foods, but all the surveys indicate that welfare is not always the determining factor. More often than not, price, accessibility and so on determine consumer choice, and we must recognise that. Nevertheless, there is no excuse for not labelling honestly and fairly so that we can ensure that the consumer is sovereign. That of course would help producers, too.
	Let us consider what will happen as a result of today's debate. As one of the Bill's sponsors, I would obviously like it to go into Committee and for us to be able to test whether Europe is capable of dealing with the issue. If Europe wants to consider legislation at European level, that is fine by me because, at the end of the day, consumers want such knowledge. We know that we have the technology to deliver information, although that may not always appear on a label. Consumers can ask about contents. That has been a key change over the past 18 months, and we know that it will improve.
	I can think of very few occasions on which consumers will not want to know exactly what is in their food. As my hon. Friend the Member for Brent, North said, it is nothing less than a life-or-death issue for some people.
	I therefore support the Bill. I hope that it will make progress not only in this place, but outside, so that the public know that we are addressing this as a serious issue. More particularly, I hope that Europe takes the matter up and does not get involved in turgid discussions that come up with an answer in five years, because we cannot act too soon. This is an important issue and will not go away. I am a sponsor of the Bill and give it my strong support.

Bill Wiggin: I am particularly keen to speak on the crucial issue of food labelling because of the many farmers in my constituency. Herefordshire beef is probably the finest beef in the world; in fact, it is definitely the finest beef. We also have Ryeland sheep, of which hon. Members may not be so well aware, but they are equally tasty. We farm chickens for the Sun Valley foods consortium.
	I visited a pig farm only the other day and was witness to the fact that the pig farmer was prepared to go the extra mile. That involved crawling into stalls—well, they are sheds more than anything—to change the straw twice a day throughout the winter, so that people could be confident that they were eating free-range piglets. We also produce dairy to such an extent that Cadbury's has situated its factory in my constituency to gather milk. The roads run red with the potato lifting that goes on, and we are famous for our cider apples. I also draw hon. Members' attention to Peter Davies of Claston farm, who has been pioneering the dwarf or hedgerow hop, which will, I hope, lead to at least 50 per cent. of all British hops being produced in Herefordshire.
	With that in mind, it is repulsive to the House that not a single Liberal Democrat has deemed it worth while to turn up. It is hard to tell whether it is more repulsive when they are here or when they are not. It is deeply offensive to the farming community.

George Osborne: Is it not extraordinary, given the pontifications of the Liberal Democrat leader that he is in some sense an Opposition to the Government, that not a single member of his party is here, particularly as so many of them represent rural constituencies?

Bill Wiggin: I am grateful for my hon. Friend's intervention. Perhaps we will all benefit when even fewer Liberal Democrats are able to take their seats.
	The Bill is crucial because it gives the wherewithal for shoppers to support the farmer if they so wish. No one has to buy British, but at least the consumer would be supported by the strength of the law.
	Information is helpful, not destructive. [Interruption.] A Liberal Democrat Member has now come into the Chamber, but it is too little, too late. Freedom of speech and information is helpful, not destructive. Indeed, a new Gallup survey suggested that animal welfare is now even more important to shoppers than it was before the foot and mouth epidemic—60 per cent. more important. Mike Sharpe, spokesman for the RSPCA's freedom food label, has said that consumers would be able to improve welfare conditions with their purchasing power and that
	"Farmers can't be expected to continue to invest in improving conditions if the public won't support them at point of purchase."
	Many Labour Members signed a recent early-day motion on fox hunting because they wrongly think it is cruel, yet this Bill will do more to prevent animal cruelty on an international basis—[Interruption.] Does the hon. Member for Cleethorpes (Shona McIsaac) want to intervene?

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. If the hon. Member for Cleethorpes wishes to make a contribution, I am sure she knows how.

Bill Wiggin: Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker.
	Every time we hear mention of animal cruelty, our conscience should remind us that if we do not support the Bill we will have done more to promote cruelty than any huntsman has throughout his entire life.
	On Tuesday we shall debate the movement of animals, with the humane idea of cutting the number of journeys that animals make. This Bill would do far more to cut the misery of animals abroad than anything proposed in that forthcoming Bill.
	The focus of previous opposition to this Bill has been removed by the re-wording. We are now looking to promote only the highest levels of animal welfare, which is surely best practice. Labelling clearly and accurately must surely be the priority of the Government, particularly after the mix-up of cow and sheep brains during the BSE-scrapie investigation. Perhaps Ministers will now have learned their lessons about labelling and will wish the Bill to be implemented swiftly.
	The Government propose to slaughter any sheep that is not scrapie resistant. They would have
	"powers to ensure that we can remove from the flock the genotypes of sheep susceptible to scrapie".
	That is a quote from the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs. I guess from the opposition that we have heard that the Government do not care about the consumer, the sheep farmer or indeed the sheep themselves, and that they are using this proposal as another way of continuing the slaughter of the national flock. I hope that, by supporting the Bill, that will be curtailed.
	Eco-warriors—including a Liberal Democrat peer—destroy genetically modified maize. We want to know whether food is genetically modified or not. We also want the right to know that our meat has been reared under the best welfare conditions, and we need to know that in the shop, at the point of purchase.
	I live in the country and I am proud to be British. I have nothing against eating French golden delicious apples, or oranges from South Africa, so why will the Government not help me to buy pork chops from pigs that I know have been raised, slaughtered and packaged in the UK?
	Poultry farmers do not receive subsidies but their customers, the supermarkets, insist on assurance schemes and back them up with crates of paperwork. I have been shown a crate full of the paperwork required to produce just one turkey. Assured schemes insist on high welfare, so that, for example, pigs have straw to rootle in and do not lie in their own soil. Likewise, grain has to be stored in areas where rats and mice are poisoned, and farmers must have plastic light guards so that glass from broken light bulbs cannot get mixed into our food. Assurance schemes are paid for by farmers and are undermined by imports from abroad. We must help our farmers by ensuring that assured food is not compared with food of lower standards or even no standard at all.
	Cages for battery hens are to be made larger, allowing slightly more freedom of movement. How do our Government support our egg producers? They allow eggs to be imported from abroad where they have no control over the cage size. Germany is poised to outlaw battery cages in egg production, going beyond EU requirements. The new rules will ban conventional cages within five years and EU-approved "enriched cages" from 2012. Labelling will not change the size of the cage, but it could allow our shoppers to choose which eggs to buy. It will also give our producers a unique selling point.

Eric Pickles: My hon. Friend has hit on the essence of the Bill. Nothing in it will outlaw any practice that is currently legal within the EU. There is nothing in the Bill to prevent the importation of those products. What it does do is empower the purchaser to make a choice.

Bill Wiggin: I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention.
	We are trying to lift standards of poultry competitiveness, rather than punish the kind farmer. Young farmers could better see what customers want, and provide it, instead of watching as they are punished for their kindness by lower prices.
	Traceability is the new burden on farmers. Cruel ear tags hang from every cow and, soon, every sheep, so that we can trace any disease straight back to the farm. Why can we not do the same for our shopping?
	My constituency would benefit from being able to raise, slaughter and package all Herefordshire beef and lamb so that it could be marketed under the Marches meat label. We are technically able to do that already, but to ensure the same standards of traceability for food as we do for the live animal, it must be a legal requirement so that consumers have faith in the labelling.
	I have a little red tractor logo stuck to my fridge so that my family do not forget to check to ensure that we are buying British. It is not always easy to do so. Yesterday, in the Tea Room, a colleague who was about to eat a burger said that he hoped it was British, so even in the House we have lost our confidence in food labelling. That loss of confidence is due, perhaps, to the unscrupulous behaviour of some retailers. We need to know that the full force of the law will be used to ensure that we know what we are eating.
	I praise the Meat and Livestock Commission for its efforts to promote British meat, including the annual barbecue that it holds to ensure that Members are aware of the sheer excellence of British meat. Now is the time to use our shopping baskets to support its efforts.
	The Bill will not save anyone from buying cruelly produced meat, but it will ensure that, by reading the label, people are able to save themselves from doing so. This morning, as I had my breakfast, I read my Weetabix packet. The contents list stated that Weetabix contained folic acid, and told me how many vitamins it contained, but I could not tell where the wheat came from, which would have been useful because more than 25 per cent. of the product is wheat.
	Even beer and other types of alcohol are clearly labelled. I recommend the cider on sale in the House, as it is made in Much Marcle in my constituency and the apples are from the surrounding countryside. Hon. Members will find it absolutely delicious, but I am sure that there is room on the bottle for a little label confirming that all the apples are British.
	We must avoid the European plug syndrome, in which the highest standards are dumbed down to ensure European satisfaction. The electrical three-pronged plug used in this country is the safest in Europe because it is independently fused, but the rest of Europe has not adopted our high standards as it is too expensive to do so. We should not allow such an attitude to determine our diet. We must support the Bill as we would support our electrical plugs, because British is safer.
	We know that far more can be done to stop illegal meat imports. I could see no signs at Gatwick airport telling me not to bring in meat, or stating the legal limit for such imports. We must take action to prevent the smuggling in of food from abroad, and we must do everything that we can to stop the import of bush meat. We certainly do not want to import Afghan heroin, and perhaps the Government might apply some of their anti-Taliban sentiment to preventing the smuggling of all illegal imports into the UK.
	The foot and mouth crisis was certainly imported. The Bill would make it less worth while and more difficult for people to bring in diseased meat, and would provide for them to be prosecuted for doing so. That is the kind of action that we need to take.
	This is a great legislative opportunity to help British farmers, who have had a tough time. Indeed, a farmer whose claim form for the countryside stewardship scheme arrived at DEFRA's office in Bristol on 3 October had it returned with a letter dated 15 October saying that his claim could not be accepted before 1 October. As one might expect, he has little confidence in the Department. This is a chance to remove that sense of persecution.
	We know that the Government have given billions of pounds to farmers in foot and mouth compensation. We know that better labelling is wanted by the Prime Minister. We know that the Bill will help, and that it has been drafted to take into account the worries of Labour Members. We know also that the Government could put energy into finding a way round EU constraints, for the benefit of European animals if nothing else.
	We always buy dolphin-friendly tuna, so why should we not buy other friendly foods, such as pig-friendly pork and chicken-friendly eggs? The answer is that we do not know which foods are friendly, and we should know. The Bill is constructive and helpful, and we should all support it because it promotes freedom of choice, freedom of information and freedom from cruelty.

Candy Atherton: I am pleased to speak in the debate, and I congratulate the hon. Member for Brentwood and Ongar (Mr. Pickles) on his choice of Bill. I am sure that all hon. Members with an interest in agriculture and the rural economy are familiar with the issue of labelling.
	Labelling is a constant theme at my regular meetings with farmers in my constituency, who are justifiably proud of their produce and want its source to be known far and wide. I shall use our particular experience in Cornwall to illustrate the wider themes. As hon. Members will know, Cornwall has had significant economic problems in recent times, but one of our strengths has been our identity, both as a community and as a place that people know and love. It has long been the wish of our farmers and our tourism industry to make the most of that strong and instantly recognisable identity and, of course, of the Cornish brand. That applies to agriculture, tourism and a host of exports.
	With European support under the objective 5b programme, the Cornish King potato brand was successfully developed. We now see the emergence of Cornish Yarg cheese, which is, I am sure, to be found by hon. Members in supermarkets, specialist delis and, of course, in the Members' Dining Room. I hope that they choose to partake of it. I have a small Yarg factory in my constituency, which is a prime example of a small industry succeeding through the quality and reputation of the product.
	Just this week, we discovered that unemployment in my constituency has fallen by nearly 50 per cent. since 1997. I am delighted to say that the area has had the fifth highest fall in unemployment in the whole country during the past year. I have absolutely no doubt that the achievement is partly due to local small businesses, such as the Yarg factory that I have described. It is a precedent for a brighter future.
	Hon. Members know that the successful development of indigenous brands and marks of quality that can be promoted at home and abroad offers much to an economy such as that of Cornwall. The clear, reliable and wholly honest labelling that hon. Members have described is essential for that development. Failure to achieve that threatens to undermine confidence and the positive initiatives that I have described. Any sensible legislation to enable that labelling to develop, and to build on existing legislation, can only be a good thing.
	I agree with the hon. Member for Brentwood and Ongar that better labelling is supported by consumers and producers alike. People like to know where their food comes from and what is in it. Some people can take that to extremes. The Cornish pasty was mentioned earlier. I have heard what may be an urban, or rather a rural, myth that someone has written a university thesis on the composition of the Cornish pasty.

David Drew: That is no surprise.

Candy Atherton: No, it would not surprise me if it were true. The composition of the pasty is a debate that goes on in Cornish pubs night after night.

Shona McIsaac: And in Devon.

Candy Atherton: Indeed.

Andrew Dismore: Perhaps my hon. Friend could give us her thesis on the proper ingredients for a Cornish pasty.

Candy Atherton: I fear that if I did so we would be here for a long time, but if Madam Deputy Speaker will permit me, I can say that a good pasty needs high-quality Cornish beef, Cornish potato, onion and high-quality pastry.
	People like to buy local produce, if they can. We can see evidence of that trend in farmers markets and the sale of local produce in village shops. I have recently given my support to the introduction of milk in Cornish schools which I believe should be produced, and known to be produced, locally. A similar scheme in primary schools in my constituency gives each pupil a piece of fruit each day. I believe that the fruit should be locally produced, and that the young children should know that it may have been grown by their own parents. Not only does good labelling give consumers greater protection, but we see the relevance of the issue to the rural economy.
	Hon. Members have made it clear that they passionately support the Bill. There is a consensus on the Floor of the House that we need to take action on food labelling, and a willingness to do so. I hope that the Bill goes into Committee for further discussion. We have heard suggestions for amendments, and the hon. Member for Brentwood and Ongar has generously offered to consider improvements.
	I am sure that hon. Members may have noticed that I have not been very successful at dieting. That is in part my own fault, but it is partly the fault of the food industry and its labelling. I have discovered that there are more calories in most fat-free and diet products than in normal products on the supermarket shelves. That, I think, is why I have not been successful with different diets over the years. I would like the Committee to look into the scandal of the labelling on slimming products in this country.
	I am pleased that our debate has focused in part on Cornish clotted cream. We have done our bit for the Cornish brand this morning. I congratulate the hon. Member for Brentwood and Ongar once more on his Bill and thank him for his interest in a matter that is of great importance to the farmers and consumers of my Falmouth and Camborne constituency.

Andrew Selous: I am grateful for the opportunity to contribute to this important debate. When I think of meetings that I have had with south Bedfordshire farmers last year and this, and when I think back to a farmer's wife who came to one of my mobile surgeries in the village of Heath and Reach in my constituency last year, I must say despair would not be too strong a word to express their feelings about their industry. When I raised with them the issues of food labelling, making sure that British farmers did not suffer prejudice as a result of the current situation, the action that we can take, and animal welfare, I received a warm response. They expressed a wish that the House should do something about those important issues.
	As Members on both sides of the House have said, the issue is clearly important to farmers; throughout the country, farmers will pay attention to our debate and, indeed, the progress of the Bill. As has been made clear, the measure does not just have the support of farmers and producers; it is supported wholeheartedly by consumers. As Members, we must represent 95,000 or so consumers who are keen to have information to enable them to shop intelligently and patriotically; they want to be able to make informed decisions about the food that they choose to buy.
	Because the issue is important, I hope that Ministers will take account of the need for speedy legislation. This morning, it has been said that perhaps the objectives could be achieved via the European route, but I very much hope that the Bill will go into Committee and proceed speedily through the House. As has been said, speed is of the essence, whether we are talking about people who suffer from nut allergy, the state of the farming industry, or indeed the wish of consumers to have proper information. As my hon. Friend the Member for Eddisbury (Mr. O'Brien) said, it is a scandal that chickens from Thailand can come into this country containing hormones that are not legal here and, to boot, have a Union Jack stamped on the packaging if the final processing takes place in this country. That is a disgrace and should not be tolerated; legislation is urgently needed to do something about it.
	Similarly, with animal welfare, the British public rightly expect our farmers to adhere to the highest possible standards. I am proud that the House has seen fit to make sure that we have higher standards of animal welfare than many other countries. For example, the stall and tether method permitted in other countries is not allowed here. Again, that imposes an extra cost and, I submit, adds extra value to the quality of British produce. If British farmers have to endure that extra cost, they should receive the benefit of its being made clear on the labelling; when the produce of other countries does not come up to those exacting standards, that should also be made clear.

Richard Younger-Ross: The hon. Gentleman talked about the cost of cheaper imports and food labelling, a principle that I support. However, do people buy food because of the label or because of the cost of the product? Will the Bill provide all the answers that the hon. Gentleman seems to suggest it would? I suspect that if stall and tether methods are still used abroad, but the meat is cheaper, the majority of people will buy the cheaper product.

Andrew Selous: I thank the hon. Gentleman, who raises the important issue of the cost of our food. We should all be conscious of the fact that people on low incomes have to watch their weekly shopping bill very closely indeed. The hon. Gentleman has made a valid point; it may be that some people simply cannot afford to indulge their consciences by buying the food made to high standards of animal welfare that they would like. However, the point still stands; information should be put in the public domain and included on the product so that people can make a choice. We would all understand if very poor people were unable to buy the more expensive product, but many people want to make sure that they shop with compassion and buy food that has been produced to the highest possible standards.
	In time, I hope that we can give a fair wind to local labelling, as has been discussed this morning. Totternhoe in my constituency gets a considerable number of eggs into the local shops, which are clearly labelled as coming from that village; indeed, the farm where those chickens live is well known, and I have been past it many times. Anything that we can do to restore the link between the consumer and the place of origin is very welcome.

Shona McIsaac: On that point, farmers markets and the option of buying direct from the farm are becoming more popular in this country. The hon. Gentleman said that something should be done, but is it not up to the farmers to take that initiative? Certainly, as a consumer, I respond to those initiatives because I know the origin of the food—the farm or the place that it comes from.

Andrew Selous: I am grateful to the hon. Lady, who is quite right. I am pleased that she mentioned farmers markets. In my constituency, the market town of Dunstable has had a farmers market in the past; Leighton Buzzard also has one. I very much welcome that initiative, which restores the connection between the consumer and the place where food is produced, enabling local people to come face to face with the producers and have the opportunity to support local farmers. Like the hon. Lady, I believe that that initiative should be encouraged, and hope that we will see more farmers markets in future.
	In conclusion, I am pleased that we have had an opportunity to debate the Bill, an extremely important piece of legislation that has the support of the farming community and consumers. I very much hope that it will make fair progress in the House and that procedural or other means will not be found to kill it off.

Shona McIsaac: First, I congratulate the hon. Member for Brentwood and Ongar (Mr. Pickles) on his speech. As the daughter of a chef, the grand-daughter of a cook and somebody who spent many years on magazines such as Woman, Bella and Chat, editing recipes and producing food writing, let me say that food is a passion is mine. Whether shopping for it, cooking or eating, it is very much the love of my life. When I shop I always look for the best-quality products that I can find. The information given to the shopper or consumer is vital, so I was pleased when I learned that the hon. Member for Brentwood and Ongar (Mr. Pickles) was introducing a Bill on food labelling. However, I have one reservation, which relates to some of the points made by hon. Friend the Member for Falmouth and Camborne (Ms Atherton) about nutritional information, especially in relation to fat-free products. I believe that the hon. Gentleman should address that.
	I have another reason for thanking the hon. Member for Brentwood and Ongar. I decided to do some essential research for the debate, and delved into the nether regions of my larder and freezer to check the food labels. I wanted to see the countries of origin of the food in my larder and the type of information that was provided on labels.
	I am eternally grateful to the hon. Member for Brentwood and Ongar for providing me with that opportunity. I realised that, because of my lifestyle as a Member of Parliament, there were far too many out-of-date products in my larder. They have now been consigned to the bin. The experience was also educational, as it was essentially a tour of the world. My larder contains Puy lentils, Camargue red rice, borlotti beans and cannellini beans, all of which will soon be out of date as I do not eat many of them; many varieties of pasta, tabbouleh, falafel, couscous and tahina mixes; and jars of cornichons—gherkins to most of us.

Angela Watkinson: If I may lower the tone for a moment, I admit to being one who has recently had to resort to that wonderful invention—the ready meal that comes out of the freezer and goes into the microwave.

Andrew Dismore: Disgrace.

Angela Watkinson: I used to grow and cook my own vegetables. I have gone from one end of the culinary spectrum to the other because of my now busy life. Ready meals have multiple ingredients, thereby opening up a large aspect of the labelling issue. Does the hon. Lady agree that, in that particular type of product, because of the variety of ingredients in just one pack, the labelling issue is particularly important?

Shona McIsaac: I thank the hon. Lady for that intervention. The issue is vital regardless of which product one is buying—whether it is a ready meal, a tinned meal or a frozen meal. The information on the label is also vital regardless of whether it concerns origin or nutritional value. Hon. Members have already mentioned the issue of food allergies, and that information, too, is vital.
	Despite the lifestyle that we lead as hon. Members, which seems to necessitate snatching food as we can, there are many very good recipes that we could make using natural ingredients. I could share some of those recipes with hon. Members later—[Interruption.] I could put them in the Library.

Stephen O'Brien: My hon. Friend the Member for Upminster (Angela Watkinson) made an interesting point in her intervention. One of the issues that arose when I was promoting my Food Labelling Bill, of which the current Bill is an amended version, was that main ingredients comprising at least 25 per cent. of the product should have label information on the country of origin and standards of production—which the hon. Member for Cleethorpes (Shona McIsaac) omitted to mention when talking about nutritional value. Therefore, a ready-made shepherd's pie, for example, would have to have label information on country of origin and standards of production for the potato and the meat. If it were a Cornish pasty, there would have to be such information also for the carrot—which the hon. Member for Falmouth and Camborne (Ms Atherton) failed to mention—but not necessarily for the spices. Those were some of the provisions. I hope that that helps the hon. Member for Cleethorpes.

Shona McIsaac: I thank the hon. Gentleman for that intervention, and I appreciated the point about a major ingredient comprising 25 per cent. or more of the product. However, I hope to explain later why I am concerned about that aspect of this Bill.
	After I threw out all the food from the back of my larder that I should have thrown out years ago, and because the Bill deals particularly with meat products—as I think the hon. Member for Brentwood and Ongar would admit—I went to my freezer, which was slightly more horrific than my larder. Many of the meat products that were in my freezer have now also been consigned to the bin. All that seems to be left in my freezer now is something called "Phish Food", which, for those who are not in the know, has nothing to do with fish but is a variety of ice cream. It is delicious: chocolate, marshmallow, caramel. It is wonderful stuff. Food, as I said, is my passion, and I hope that hon. Members will forgive me if occasionally I get a little carried away about it.

Candy Atherton: Is "Phish Food" a low-fat food, please?

Shona McIsaac: "Phish Food" could in no way be described as low fat, but it is delicious and, as I have always said, one should be able to eat whatever one likes.
	The labelling on that ice cream, which was made in the USA—another flavour is "Cherry Garcia"; the company is quite good with its names—was far more extensive than that which I have seen on products made in the United Kingdom. I was gratified to see that amount of detail on nutritional information and welfare standards. The particular company is also very keen on obtaining its milk from cows that are raised with very high welfare standards.
	Like the hon. Member for Brentwood and Ongar, I want to see honest and unambiguous labelling, and I have some worries about food labelling. Many people are trying to lose weight or diet, as my hon. Friend the Member for Falmouth and Camborne said, but the nutritional information on labels is absolutely scandalous. Because of the way in which the information is calculated, the labelling is completely wrong and totally misleading to consumers.
	Products in supermarkets often proclaim that they are "lower fat" or "80 per cent. fat free", but water is often included in the calculations. Rather than working out the percentage of calories that is derived from fat, percentages are calculated on the basis of gross weight. Consequently, manufacturers will say that such products are 80 per cent. fat free, whereas in fact, based on dry ingredients alone, products such as "low-fat" mayonnaise are astonishingly high in fat. That may explain why my hon. Friend the Member for Falmouth and Camborne has discovered that many foods that are labelled as being healthier, good for dieting and lower in fat are far from it. Such labels are completely misleading. I am concerned about the provision specifying that major ingredients are those which constitute 25 per cent. of the product's weight because it does not get round the problem.

Eric Pickles: I apologise for intervening, as the hon. Lady is making a very interesting point. I suspect her concerns might more appropriately be dealt with by new regulations under the Food Safety Act 1990. Although we could examine the issue in Committee on my Bill, I suspect that we shall have to ask Ministers to introduce regulations. I believe that the Secretary of State already has the power to do precisely what the hon. Lady is suggesting.

Shona McIsaac: I thank the hon. Gentleman for that intervention. If the Bill is considered in Committee, I hope that that point is addressed. I was using the illustration of food such as lower-fat mayonnaise as an example of how the consumer can be hoodwinked by labelling. I would not want the hon. Gentleman to fall into that trap by specifying that labels would have to identify the country of origin of any ingredient representing 25 per cent. of a product by weight. I feel that it would have to specify dry weight, otherwise some producers would be able to avoid stating the country of origin of an ingredient by playing around with statistics.

Eric Pickles: I have no problem whatever with that suggestion and would look favourably on any amendment to that effect.

Shona McIsaac: I thank the hon. Gentleman for that commitment. I know that he is particularly concerned about country of origin, but food labelling should provide more than that. Some people want to know that they are buying healthy food. If we are to be fair to the consumer, labelling has to reflect the complete picture and supply nutritional information, country of origin and as much detail as possible about the ingredients of a product, including welfare standards.

Stephen O'Brien: The principle behind the Bill is that labelling should include as much information as possible. However, consumers have to be able to manage that information, so it has to be user friendly. It was proposed that country of origin, which is easy to focus on, can be identified by means of a letter. That would have to be enforceable by law. Standards of production, nutritional value, whether a product is GM-free or contains allergens which need to be identified could be dealt with by means of certification for ease of reference, as was discussed on 3 March 2000 when I presented the original Bill. The subject could be explored in detail in Committee, particularly as responsibility for the Bill has now been transferred to the Department of Health, which would be anxious for accountability to be set out along those lines. I hope that my intervention, which was somewhat longer than usual, has helped the hon. Lady.

Shona McIsaac: It is extremely helpful. As the hon. Gentleman rightly says, information has to be presented in a way that consumers understand. Returning to my example of consumers being given misleading information about so-called healthy food, we must not allow that to happen in respect of country of origin. Food labels can provide quite a lot of information that is not necessarily misleading in a type size that is so tiny that it is virtually impossible to read and therefore meaningless. It is vital that food labels provide information that is set out clearly and is easy to understand.
	I now turn to an issue that was raised earlier, particularly by my hon. Friend the Member for Falmouth and Camborne. I get the distinct feeling that people wish to buy British products which are of a high standard; local products are something of which people want more. My hon. Friend referred to Cornish pasties and clotted cream. My parents live in Devon, where we like our Devon pasties and Devon clotted cream which are also very high quality. The local element is important.

Andrew Dismore: Do Devon pasties contain carrots? I do not think that Cornish pasties do.

Shona McIsaac: When I visit my parents in Plymouth, I go to Ivor Dewdney's pasty shop. The pasties are delicious, but I do not think there are any carrots in them. I do not know whether they are sold in Cornwall.
	People want local food. I represent a Lincolnshire seat, and when I buy Lincolnshire pork sausages, I want to know whether the meat comes from Lincolnshire or whether it can be any pork. Perhaps the hon. Member for Brentwood and Ongar can tell me. Does the meat have to come from Lincolnshire or it is just the recipe that makes them Lincolnshire pork sausages? I know that the welfare standard for pigs in Lincolnshire is phenomenally high. The hon. Gentleman was at the pig breakfast the other morning and I am sure that he can help me.

Eric Pickles: The first point has already been covered. We are talking about existing welfare standards in the United Kingdom. On the specific point that the hon. Lady raised, I shall try to be helpful. I am embarrassed to say to a food expert that, as far as I know, Lincolnshire sausages are made to a specific recipe that includes leeks, just as Cumberland sausages are made to a specific recipe using peppers and spices. Hence the problem with Wiltshire cure. It is possible to produce something of that description many miles from Wiltshire. The Bill would ensure that the consumer who purchases Lincolnshire sausages is assured that the pig has been reared under a regime that the House has approved.

Shona McIsaac: I thank the hon. Gentleman for that information. I am gratified to hear him confirm that it is the recipe that matters. However, many people believe—certainly in the region that I represent—that Lincolnshire pork sausages include pork from the farms in that area, but that cannot be guaranteed unless a customer visits a specialist local butcher who makes his own sausages.
	There is a passion for local food. The hon. Member for Leominster (Mr. Wiggin) mentioned cider. As secretary of the all-party cider group, I was pleased about that advertisement on its behalf. My passion for British food also applies to traditional British drinks.

Angela Smith: In what quantity?

Shona McIsaac: In moderation.
	Recipes that use British cider and beautiful outdoor reared British pork can be delightful. The Bill needs to cover local food.

Richard Younger-Ross: I agree with the hon. Member for Brentwood and Ongar (Mr. Pickles) that Lincolnshire sausage is a recipe. Most people know that. Any good country cook book—if the hon. Lady is a good cook, she will have one at home—will contain a recipe for Lincolnshire sausages. I have made them to such a recipe. Cumbrian sausages in local butchers will also be made to a recipe. The hon. Lady should not worry too much about confusing the origins of Lincolnshire sausages.

Shona McIsaac: I thank the hon. Gentleman for that.
	Lincolnshire pork sausages, Cumberland ring sausages and other wonderful traditional British food need to promoted.

Andrew Dismore: My hon. Friend may be aware that I am a Yorkshireman, and I like to have Yorkshire pudding with my roast beef. Is she seriously suggesting that a Yorkshire pudding should comprise only flour, eggs and milk from Yorkshire?

Shona McIsaac: Many of my Yorkshire friends have reliably informed me that that would be the crême de la crême of Yorkshire puddings.
	The quality of the product is important. Yorkshire pudding is another wonderful British food. Coupled with—

Richard Younger-Ross: Will the hon. Lady give way?

Shona McIsaac: Oh dear. If the hon. Gentleman likes, I shall try to work my way through the best food products of the entire United Kingdom.

Richard Younger-Ross: Yorkshire pudding comes from France. It was brought over during the Napoleonic wars.

Shona McIsaac: The hon. Gentleman is in danger of causing hostilities to break out with my hon. Friend the Member for Hendon (Mr. Dismore). However, if he wishes to get into that argument, many traditional British foods originated in other cuisines. For example, haggis, which is quintessentially Scottish, has its origins in France, and I probably risk getting hate mail from Scots for saying that. We cannot get away from those links.
	Country of origin labels need to be coupled with the promotion of British food, not just to people who live here, but to tourists as well. That would also help farmers. A few years ago the Scottish tourist board and other agencies produced an initiative called the taste of Scotland. It used the very best products and ingredients, whether from land or sea. It was promoted so that hotels, restaurants and pubs would get a Taste of Scotland award. It is now a phenomenally successful strategy which I should like to see extended to many other parts of the United Kingdom. I do not know whether the Cornwall tourist board has something similar.

Bill Wiggin: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. The Bill applies to England and Wales, not to Scotland.

Madam Deputy Speaker: The hon. Lady will have heard that point.

Shona McIsaac: I appreciate the consequences of having a Scottish Parliament but that does not dull my passion for the traditional foods of all these islands.
	I am concerned that although beef and lamb from Scotland can be labelled as Scottish beef and lamb, and sold as such, that does not mean that those animals were born in Scotland, merely that they were finished there for three months. The Bill wants to specify the country of origin, but it appears that imports could still come into this country for three or four months, after which time they would be slaughtered, and still be described as British. The Bill does not seem to cover that point.
	I should like food labelling to be a little more honest about mechanically recovered and reformed meat. I do not believe that products using such meat portray British food at its best, and the fact that meat is derived from such processes should be far more prominent on food labels. If it were, people might choose products of a higher standard and better flavour, even if they were more expensive. Ham sandwiches in the Tea Room here generally contain reformed or mechanically recovered ham. People would not pay the lower prices if they understood more about how that meat was obtained. That must be made clearer.
	I understand that because of EU regulations that have been in place since BSE and other issues, some of the measures that the hon. Member for Brentwood and Ongar proposes are already in place. Will he confirm that? I understand that from 1 September this year, all beef sold in the EU must be labelled to show the EU country in which it is slaughtered and that from next year the country of origin will have to be on the label. Is that correct?

Eric Pickles: The hon. Lady is absolutely correct. That clearly shows that this is not an EU-bashing Bill; it is within EU law. The hon. Lady makes her point excellently, and I thank her for making it.

Shona McIsaac: My point is that the hon. Gentleman has introduced a private Member's Bill to deal with concerns that are already being addressed, particularly in relation to beef.
	I understand that most beef purchased in the UK is in the form of mince; people make shepherd's pies, cottage pies, pasta dishes and so on with it. Yet apparently, the new regulation will not cover mince products. If someone buys a steak, the information will be on the label, but if the steak is minced, the label will not have to show country of origin. I cannot understand that.

Eric Pickles: My eyesight is not good enough to see which document the hon. Lady is holding, but the Library has brought out a good briefing paper that goes into that in great detail. [Interruption.] I thank the hon. Lady for holding the document up for me to see; it is indeed the Library briefing, and the third or fourth page of it explains the details.
	My substantive point is that when my hon. Friend the Member for Eddisbury (Mr. O'Brien) was trying to introduce his Bill, he was told by Ministers that what he wanted to do was not possible, because it was against EU regulations and law. The fact that we now have the scheme that the hon. Lady has just mentioned demonstrates beyond peradventure that that is not so.

Shona McIsaac: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his helpful intervention. I have read the excellent Library briefing note, which, as he says, goes into the subject in great detail. However, it does say that there will be concerns about certain EU regulations. I realise that the hon. Gentleman is saying that his Bill is not EU-bashing, but even the Library note says that concern could be raised about some of the measures that he wants to introduce.

Eric Pickles: It is a matter of some regret that, because of other parliamentary business, I could not publish the Bill earlier.

Shona McIsaac: indicated assent

Eric Pickles: Yes, I apologise. I am sure that hon. Members will understand that I was engaged on other matters of equal importance.

Andrew Dismore: Oh.

Eric Pickles: I was trying to arrive at a consensus, and was meeting representatives of the food labelling industry so as to incorporate their amendments. I then amended my hon. Friend's definition, to avoid getting entangled in any possibility of infringing EU law. It is my fault that the Library staff had not caught up with the changes. When they spoke to me I said that my Bill would be largely the same as my hon. Friend's Bill, but then I made material changes, which is why the Library briefing is not as accurate as it would otherwise be. As I say, that is not the Library's fault but mine.

Shona McIsaac: I thank the hon. Gentleman for that explanation, and for being so open about what happened. When I saw that he was going to introduce a Bill on food labelling I went to ask for a copy. I realise that it was a little late in appearing, but now I understand what happened.
	Country of origin will have to be listed for major ingredients—that is, ingredients that constitute more than 25 per cent. of the product by weight. If the Bill gets into Committee I should like that definition to be 25 per cent. of dry weight; otherwise the largest ingredient may be water, and people will not get the information that many Members want to see on food labels.

Andrew Dismore: What troubles me about that idea is: what happens when the product is supposed to be liquid, such as an alcoholic drink or soft beverage? How does one define the dry weight of a fizzy drink, beer or wine?

Shona McIsaac: I must admit that that is a conundrum; I was thinking mainly of foods such as ready meals, as mentioned by the hon. Member for Upminster (Angela Watkinson), who is no longer in her place. I was thinking in particular of ingredients in recipes for such foods, as opposed to fizzy drinks. The hon. Member for Brentwood and Ongar is concerned mainly about meat products, so he is probably not very worried about the country of origin of the ingredients of fizzy drinks—most of which now seem to be created in chemical factories.

Andrew Dismore: May I give my hon. Friend the specific example of wine? We have heard reports over the years of some real shenanigans in parts of the continent, with wines from two, three or four different countries being slung in a tank together and then rebottled. I would be very concerned if my hon. Friend's definition of dry weight did not catch such practices.

Shona McIsaac: My hon. Friend has certainly revealed something else that will have to be addressed in the Bill. Instead of merely specifying weight, perhaps we should specify dry weight for certain goods. We need to clarify that part of the Bill and expand it to take into account the concerns that my hon. Friend has raised.

Chris Bryant: What about Irn Bru? For many years, it was advertised as being built from girders. What are we to do about that?

Shona McIsaac: All I say about Irn Bru is that we should drink vast amounts of it. I adore it. I am reliably informed that it is one of the best hangover cures. Perhaps we should stock a little more of it in the Members' Tea Room, as some Members may benefit from it at breakfast.

Stephen O'Brien: Rather than prying too deeply into hangover cures, I want to refer to the points made by the hon. Member for Hendon. They would make exceptionally good points for scrutiny in Committee. I hope that he was making them constructively because he wants the Bill to proceed and that he was not merely trying to find problems. There is enormous support for the measure, not only from both sides of the House but from a host of interest groups representing many millions of people who would like these provisions to come into force—and fast. They offer a better option for negotiation with the EU than the current arrangements. As the hon. Lady knows the hon. Member for Hendon better than I do, perhaps she can help me by confirming that he was being exceptionally constructive and suggesting points for Committee rather than trying to criticise the Bill as a whole.

Shona McIsaac: I do not think that anybody has been particularly destructive today. We have all made valuable contributions to the debate. Indeed, what has come out of the debate is our genuine passion for food and for the wonderful products of our islands. We are all trying to be helpful. We may have some concerns about aspects of the Bill. For example, I am worried that food can be labelled as low fat when in fact it is not. Such things need to be addressed and unless I raise them now, they may not be dealt with in Committee. I am putting down my marker to say: "Somebody, look at these," so that if the Bill goes into Committee, those points will have to be addressed.
	On labelling, my final piece of research—apart from eating copious quantities of Phish Food from my freezer—

Andrew Dismore: With a "ph"?

Shona McIsaac: Yes. Phish with a "ph".

Andrew Dismore: Or was it the freezer?

Shona McIsaac: I doubt that my freezer has a "ph".
	Reading through the ingredients of the staple food product in my office, I found that they were wheat flour and milk chocolate—28 per cent.—so that could be the major ingredient. However, the label does not make it clear whether that 28 per cent. relates to the fact that the milk chocolate is 28 per cent. of the product or to the fact that the milk chocolate has only 28 per cent. cocoa solids. We can be misled even by something as innocent as a chocolate digestive biscuit. Incidentally, my hon. Friend the Member for Falmouth and Camborne may want to know that it contains 87 calories with 4.1 grammes of fat. That would work out as a fat content of about 33 per cent. so—

Eric Pickles: I must point out to the hon. Lady that in my experience there is nothing innocent about a chocolate biscuit. However, all these things can be dealt with in Committee.

Shona McIsaac: In that case, I hope that the hon. Gentleman is taking note of the issues that I have raised this morning. When we consider the list of ingredients of a product, the major constituent is not always clear. Although ingredients are meant to be listed in order of quantity, in the case of chocolate digestives the 28 per cent. probably relates to the milk chocolate rather than the product's weight.
	I thank the hon. Member for Brentwood and Ongar again for his thoughtful speech and his generosity in allowing so many interventions. I am eternally grateful to him for causing me to clean out my larder of all the out-of-date food. He has done a service to the McIsaac household.
	Ultimately, all Members here today have a passion for food, especially British food, and we want to promote the very best products that this country produces. I hope that the hon. Gentleman has taken on board my concerns, particularly the way in which statistics are played with. Food labels must be clear, honest and completely unambiguous in relation not just to country of origin but to health and nutrition.

Richard Younger-Ross: I have a great passion for food and I welcome the Bill. This is a timely debate. I came to the House today to discuss patents legislation, but something funny happened on the way to the forum.
	I am afraid that we might conclude from this debate that the Bill represents the solution to the plight of farmers. I have met farmers in my constituency and members of the National Farmers Union who are worried about the marketing of their produce and about mislabelling in supermarkets and shops. They have a passion for the Bill and want food produced in Britain to be clearly marked as such. In Committee, we shall have to discuss the problems that will arise in the process.
	There are problems with defining where a product comes from. For example, a pork product may have been bred in Shropshire, fattened in France, slaughtered in Holland, processed in Belgium and sold back to the UK. How would such a product be defined?

Eric Pickles: I am happy to explain that. Had the hon. Gentleman not missed the first two hours of the debate, he would have heard me deal with it earlier. We also heard an interesting speech by the hon. Member for Stroud (Mr. Drew), who dealt precisely with that matter, so I suggest that the hon. Gentleman checks Hansard. Frankly, I am embarrassed to have to respond to somebody who did not turn up for the debate and who has not apologised to me or the House for missing it. Labour Members missed a few minutes of my speech because of the collapse of business and were profuse in their apologies. I very much regret the hon. Gentleman's discourtesy to both me and the House for going into matters about which, had he been more diligent in his duties, he would have known something.

Richard Younger-Ross: I apologise to the hon. Gentleman for not being here earlier, but I was having to apologise to a constituent who came here from Devon to listen to the Patents Bill debate. He had been involved in talks with the promoter of that Bill.

Andrew Dismore: I fully take the hon. Gentleman's point, but I am surprised that the Liberal Democrat Benches have remained empty for most of the debate. Although I understand his reason for being absent, it would surely have been appropriate for a Liberal Democrat colleague to be present to tell him what went on.

Richard Younger-Ross: I thank the hon. Gentleman for that intervention. I have been here for much of the debate, and I apologise for not being able to be here for its beginning. I have a passion for food and, despite the point scoring, the issues raised are pertinent. I will read Hansard with interest tomorrow to discover a few answers.
	It is important that we do not go away with the idea that labelling is the answer to all farmers' problems. If we do, we shall let the Government off the hook. Many issues relating to education and the cost of products must be resolved. We need a policy for the way in which supermarkets buy from farmers. Whether it is through the promotion of co-operatives or whatever, we should enable farmers to strengthen their arm when they deal with supermarkets. Despite the fact that I have heard people outside say that labelling can provide the solution, the answer is not as simple as they might think.
	Regional food is very important. When I was on holiday in Yorkshire, I was lucky enough to be able to go to a food festival in York. It was exceedingly good. There was a stand that sold bacon from Gloucestershire old spot pigs, and I had never had the opportunity to try it before. It was sweet, succulent and excellent. The fact that such products are being sold means that there is greater interest in food, by and large among the chattering classes.

Andrew Dismore: The hon. Gentleman has highlighted some of the problems with the Bill. He spoke about Gloucestershire old spot pigs, but were they raised in Yorkshire? If they were, would not the bacon have been York ham?

Richard Younger-Ross: I did not have the opportunity to talk to the pig at the time, so I cannot say where it came from. It was not marked or labelled. Old spot is a breed, so it is misleading to go down that line. It was succulent bacon and the producers should be proud of the product. I hope that more people have an opportunity to diversify and sell quality products.
	I was also pleased that a company from my constituency, Roccombe Dairies, was represented at the festival. It makes excellent organic ice cream—it is better than Phish—and it has been very successful. It has been sold in the precincts of the Palace.
	The Bill and the extra interest in food will help us deal with some of the problems. I take the point made by the hon. Member for Brentwood and Ongar (Mr. Pickles) that we will be able to consider the issues further in Committee and that that will have positive consequences. However, we should not claim that the Bill will be the answer. Hon. Members on both sides of the House need to put more pressure on the Government so that they deal with the problems of the costs that farmers face and consider other ways of aiding them. That will ensure that the food industry in this country is profitable and long standing.

Chris Bryant: I apologise for not having been able to be here for the whole debate. I was chairing a fascinating debate among young people in Committee Room 10—almost on a par with the quality of debate in the Chamber. I am glad that some of those who debated so effectively upstairs are watching this debate and seeing what parliamentarians get up to on their behalf.
	I have a series of problems with the Bill, not least because it does not address the real issues. Food labelling is a problem and there is not enough information on the foodstuffs that one comes across. Like the hon. Member for Brentwood and Ongar (Mr. Pickles), I shop in Tesco. In the Rhondda, we do not have any other major supermarket chains apart from the Pioneer stores in Treorchy and Porth. They are not open at 11 pm, which is when I tend to get home on Thursday evenings and do my shopping. However, this weekend, I obviously wanted to stay here for this important debate, so I do not know when I will get to the supermarket. On the whole, it is Tesco for me.
	I am troubled by the amount of information that supermarkets can garner about the shopping, eating and even clothing habits of their customers through the reward card system. There is an issue of civil liberties there, but I do not want to stray into a matter that is of no relevance to the Bill, Mr. Deputy Speaker.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman has been circling the Bill. It would be to the advantage of the House if he would now home in on it.

Chris Bryant: Thank you for your invitation to attack the Bill in a more vulture-like way, Mr. Deputy Speaker, which I shall now seek to do.
	The information that my constituents look for when they buy food is, first, the sell-by date. A few days before the general election, I visited a shop just outside my constituency. I was taken to the front and shown a large display that boldly announced, "Out of date crisps—22p". Why a shop should boldly declare that the crisps were out of date, I do not know. There is still a market in food that has passed its sell-by date, and the Government need to look into it. Everyone has welcomed the advent of marking products with sell-by dates, but we need to look into it more closely. I have regularly seen in supermarkets in south Wales products that have had their sell-by date deleted and another put on top.
	My constituents also want to know, as the Bill acknowledges, what is inside the products that they buy. However, I do not think that their primary interest is where the eggs, butter, flour and salt in their tarte au citron comes from. They do not want someone in an obscure bureaucratic office to analyse whether the lemon tart is made according to Jamie Oliver's recipe, which requires 18 lemons, constituting 25 per cent. by weight of the tart, or to that of the two fat ladies—who are now singular—which involves only eight lemons, constituting less than 25 per cent. by weight. [Interruption.] Opposition Members laugh, but the issue of the major ingredient is a significant problem.

George Osborne: The reason why we were chuckling is that the hon. Gentleman said that the two fat ladies were now singular. That is because one of them has died, I believe.

Chris Bryant: I did not know that Opposition Members could be so cavalier as to laugh at the death of one of the two fat ladies. I was thoroughly aware that one of them had died. That still sounds cavalier, but the point is made.
	An issue that is significant to my constituents is the nationality of the food that they buy. At least one other hon. Member in the Chamber will have been delighted to notice that in recent years there has been a resurgence of Welsh produce across the whole country. Indeed, on a recent visit to Madrid, I was delighted to see products on which a little red dragon showed that kettle chips, lamb or other produce were from Wales, and that they were marketed as such. [Interruption.] Does the hon. Member for Brentwood and Ongar want me to give way?

Eric Pickles: No, I am just gesticulating.

Chris Bryant: I am glad that it is just gesticulation. The marketing of Welsh produce is of significant benefit to Welsh farmers and businesses.

Shona McIsaac: I am intrigued by what my hon. Friend says about finding Welsh products in Spain. However, could not British products such as Welsh lamb be exported to other European countries, slaughtered and then labelled Spanish, French or whatever?

Chris Bryant: That is an important point. The Bill will make it more difficult for my constituents involved in livestock or packaged products to sell their produce elsewhere in the EU. The pop factory in Porth once used to produce Corona. Hon. Members may remember the slogan—

Shona McIsaac: "It's frothy man."

Chris Bryant: No, that was for another product. The slogan was, "Every bubble's passed its fizzical." Unfortunately, the pop factory has gone the way of all mortal flesh, although it has been replaced by an extremely successful television studio. However, we still have one of the most successful ice cream manufacturers in the country, Mr. Creamy, in Tonypandy.

Eric Pickles: I am not surprised that the hon. Gentleman has Mr. Creamy in his constituency but—forgive me—what does this have to do with the Bill?

Chris Bryant: I am talking about clause 2(1)(b) which refers to
	"where the food has more than one ingredient, particulars of the country or countries of origin of each major ingredient."
	I do not want to bore hon. Members. [Hon. Members: "Too late."] I did not want to bore them, and I do not want to bore them any further by reciting a lengthy list of all the Mr. Creamy products that are available. Under the Bill, I do not know how one will be able to analyse and package Mr. Creamy's products in a way that would not make it impossible for consumers to have a genuine understanding. Many Opposition Members attack the EU for ludicrously excessive bureaucracy, yet this is a classic instance of it.
	Mr. Deputy Speaker, I see that you are frowning. You may be concerned that I am circling the Bill, but I am trying to make a specific point about the 25 per cent. clause.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I suggest that the hon. Gentleman does not attempt to second-guess the expressions that flit across my face when I am listening, absorbed, to a debate. I suggest that he sticks closely to the terms of the Bill.

Chris Bryant: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I will try my best. One of the problems that the Bill tries to rectify is that of misleading information on packaging and goods, suggesting that a piece of meat is Welsh when, in fact, it turns out to be from Germany, France, the Czech Republic, Poland or Hungary. That is not as important as the fact that most packaging is almost unintelligible, containing lengthy recitations of different elements inside a product, leaving one none the wiser. I am hesitant about the Bill because of the temptation to create an overly bureaucratic system.
	The Bill misses the point because we genuinely need a fully European answer to the question of food labelling. We do not just need a one-country answer. The matter is important to my constituents who are trying to sell their products elsewhere in Europe. We must consider not only whether the Bill would achieve anything legally—I understand that it is in contravention of several articles of the treaty of Rome, as amended by the treaty of Amsterdam—but whether we are doing our best for our constituents who have businesses to run. I am confident that the Government are moving towards a fully European answer and are pushing, through the EU, to ensure that we have a system that gives everybody the full information that people need when shopping in Tesco, Sainsbury, or wherever.
	We need a robust legal answer to those points, but I do not think that the Bill is legally robust. It is not robust when one considers the treaty of Rome or the definition in clause 2 of "each major ingredient".

Eric Pickles: Would the hon. Gentleman care to tell us which articles of the treaty he feels the Bill infringes?

Chris Bryant: Articles 226 and 227 would be problems. The hon. Gentleman is frowning; if he wants a copy of the treaty, I have it with me. We note that he is merely frowning.
	The idea that we should institute our own specific understanding of what counts as sufficient and sensible labelling, as opposed to that elsewhere in the EU, is flawed.

Stephen O'Brien: Given the hon. Gentleman's important point that he believes the Bill to be legally flawed, I should be grateful if he told us about his background. Perhaps he is qualified in the law. I am unaware of the authority with which he makes the assertion.

Chris Bryant: I did not know that it was customary in the House to ask about hon. Members' backgrounds. However, I was head of European affairs for the BBC, so I have some passing acquaintance with the legislation to which we are referring.
	Clause 4 defines the method of marking or labelling. It states:
	"Subject to subsection (2), the information required by this Act shall be provided—
	(a) on the food's packaging;
	(b) on a label attached to the food's packaging;"
	and so on. There is a genuine problem about the recycling of packaging. I bought a half leg of Welsh lamb in Tesco the other day, and delicious it was, but it came in a package of enormous proportions, which when chucked away took up half the bin. There is a problem with the amount of information that we as legislators decide must be on packaging. It is one of the issues that we need to address because a landfill site in my constituency is full of packaging. Conservative Members, via the Bill, want to increase the amount of packaging.
	I conclude by making a plea to Conservative Members on behalf of those in my constituency who make and produce foodstuffs in all their various forms—whether it is Mr. Creamy or anyone else.

Eric Pickles: I have enjoyed the hon. Gentleman's speech and he has been most courteous in giving way, but I am still bemused. I think that he referred to article 217; I may have misheard. I do not understand the point that he is making on that article. My understanding is that the articles of concern to the Government are 28, 29 and 30 and—I think—36. As he may be making an important point about article 217, I would be grateful if he clarified it.

Chris Bryant: I thank the hon. Gentleman for giving me an opportunity to clarify the position. It is article 226. That article would mean that the European Commission could rule against the UK on the matter, and article 227 would mean that other member states could bring a complaint against the UK.

Eric Pickles: This is clearly an important point. That was precisely the article under which the Commission acted with regard to British beef, poultry in Germany and French pigs, so I think that the hon. Gentleman has rather undermined his case. We are clearly within article 226—that is why I was looking bemused. Now I am beginning to feel more confident that we are within articles 28, 29, 30 and 36.

Chris Bryant: I think that the hon. Gentleman is wrong. If the Bill were to become an Act, it would be open to challenge by the European Commission under article 226 and by other member states under article 227. As I am sure he knows, the numbers of all the articles change, so he may have confused himself a little.

Eric Pickles: The articles do not change up in the 200s from the 20s.

Chris Bryant: They do change up in the 200s—75 became 92 and so on—but we are now straying into articles and numbering.

Eric Pickles: I hardly think that I would get confused by a change in numbering from the low 20s to the upper 200s, but the hon. Gentleman has undermined his case. I reiterate: the Commission acts according to precedent and it has created a clear precedent with British beef, French pork and German poultry. I am confident that the measure can get through. [Interruption.] It is no use the Minister shaking his head because the Government were wrong last time on British beef. He got the same advice last time. They were wrong then and they are wrong now. They should give the Bill a chance for the sake of British farmers.

Chris Bryant: The difficulty that the hon. Gentleman is having is over the difference between article 28, which explicitly prohibits quantitative restrictions on trade between member states and measures of equivalent effect, and the later articles in the treaty of Rome—226 and 227—which give either the Commission or member states the opportunity to challenge in relation to article 28.

Eric Pickles: The hon. Gentleman would be right if article 28 referred to quantitative restrictions, but it refers to quantitative restrictions on imports, and there are no quantitative restrictions on imports in the Bill.

Chris Bryant: The point is that the article is not just on imports, but on trade. [Hon. Members: "No."] It is. It is about restrictions on trade between member states—clearly, imports are a form of trade between member states—and measures of equivalent effect. If we change the labelling that has to be used in this country, we are by definition affecting the trading relations with other countries in the European Union. That is what then becomes subject to potential challenge under articles 226 or 227.

Stephen O'Brien: It was after all the hon. Gentleman who introduced this line of argument, so it is proper that we seek to pursue it. As he interprets the article, how does that leave the position that has now been created by precedent in relation to France and beef imports, and the analysis that he is trying to project of the Bill?

Chris Bryant: I would have to leave that to lawyers with greater capacity than I, but the Bill is at least in danger of falling foul of the EU legislation and at worst does not deal with the real problems that constituents face. It does not provide what is truly necessary, which is a fully European answer to the issues of food labelling.

Eric Pickles: The hon. Gentleman is being most courteous and this is proving to be an interesting exchange. I note that he is retreating from his earlier position, and I am grateful for that. We know how the Bill will be affected by the article to which he has referred: it will be examined on two issues, covert protectionism and retaliation, and it is clean on both charges.

Chris Bryant: I disagree. I do not know whether Conservative Members have a copy of the treaty, but I should be happy to lend them one. Article 28 says that any autonomous alteration or suspension of duties in the common customs tariff shall be decided by the Council acting by a qualified majority on the proposal from the Commission. That has regularly been interpreted as referring not only to specific changes to tariffs and duties but to anything that materially or directly affects the free movement of goods in the European Union. Article 226 says that the Commission has a right to challenge, and article 227 gives other member states the same right.
	The hon. Gentleman's simple assertion that his Bill is clean does not mean that it is clean. I am not the only person who has contested this point; other hon. Members have done so. I oppose the Bill not only on that point but because I want a genuinely European solution to the problem of food labelling. The Bill would inevitably queer the pitch for any future proposals by the Government for action through the European Union. That would be a mistake, and that is why I wholeheartedly, rather than slightly, oppose the Bill.
	The hon. Gentleman said earlier that points made by other hon. Members were sensible and could be dealt with in Committee, so they should vote for the Bill's Second Reading, but I want to do more than tinker with its clauses. My objection is more substantial; it strikes at the heart of the Bill. On behalf on Mr. Creamy, Welsh kettle chips and Welsh lamb, I want to see, a genuinely European solution to the problem of food labelling.

Eric Pickles: I am sorry that the hon. Gentleman has chosen to spoil an otherwise absorbing speech by mocking those of his colleagues who made legitimate points. My point, which I want to make forcefully, is that if other European Union countries such as Germany and France are prepared to give a lead, why cannot we simply follow them? Why do we not do something for our farmers? Mr. Whippy and Welsh lamb would be better served by the Bill than by waiting for pan-European promises of legislation. We have heard those promises before, and they have not been fulfilled.

Chris Bryant: I am slightly confused by what the hon. Gentleman is saying. He seems to be accusing me of demeaning the comments made by other hon. Members. I am not doing so. As I said, I have not been here for the whole debate, but I agree with many of the objections that I have heard. The hon. Gentlemans response to some of the objections made by my hon. Friends was that they could be dealt with in Committee, so they should vote to give the Bill a Second Reading. I do not disagree with those objections; I believe that they show that the Bill is fatally flawed and should be rejected.
	Conservative Members have rejected entire Bills, as a matter of course, despite maintaining in public that they object only to elements of them. They have often voted against a programme motion as a means of objecting to a Bill. I am therefore arguing that the Bill is fundamentally flawed, so it should not make any progress after today.
	I should correct the hon. Gentleman about Mr. Whippy. I do not know where Mr. Whippy is based, but it is certainly not in the Rhondda. Mr. Creamy has a virtual monopoly in my constituency; it is very fine ice cream, and I recommend it to the House. Perhaps we should make sure that Mr. Creamy's ice cream is available in the House.
	Clause 4, which deals with packaging, is as flawed as clause 2. We are in danger of creating a situation that is unsustainable for those who produce foodstuffs in this country; it is also unsustainable for supermarkets and those who have to dispose of household waste. That may seem relatively minor, but I believe that it is significant. This country already finds it difficult to match the aspirations of other European countries on recycling. I shop in Tesco, where I buy tomatoes, bananas, potatoes and so on, all of which are packaged, as they have to state which country they come from. I have to dispose of all the packaging—yet another little plastic tray, wrapped in yet another piece of printed cardboard. Invariably, I end up with more packaging than foodstuffs.
	The Bill is fatally flawed and misses the point. It will not achieve its objectives because it is likely to fall at the first, second, third, fourth and fifth legal hurdle in Europe. Producers in other countries, and, indeed, some in our own country, will probably say that the legislation should not be introduced because it is unfair and disadvantages countries other than Britain. I am sure that later we will hear about important advances that the Government want to make in food labelling across the whole of Europe.
	I know that the hon. Member for Brentwood and Ongar will deny this, but underlying the Bill is an anti-European sentiment—[Interruption.] Opposition Members are mildly fulminating, but only recently the hon. Member for Brentwood and Ongar raised the matter of what the Germans and the French are doing. If we wait for Europe, he suggested, nothing will ever happen.

Eric Pickles: My credentials on supporting matters relating to Europe are pretty good, as are those of the hon. Member for Harlow (Mr. Rammell), who is sponsoring the Bill. We want a Europe of equal partners where, perhaps, we take the lead; we do not want a Europe where we are the slowest member. The Europe of bureaucracy and sloth is not the modern Europe that most people in this country want.

Chris Bryant: I know that sometimes hon. Members have to pretend to be shocked and surprised, but I am genuinely shocked and surprised by the hon. Gentleman's argument. Indeed we should have a less bureaucratic system in Europe, but he has introduced a Bill that is the height of bureaucracy. It is likely to make it far more difficult for producers in this country to sell their goods in the rest of Europe; it would create unnecessary bureaucracy. The hon. Gentleman compounded his error by trying to suggest that, as he has good European credentials, he could not possibly advocate anything other than a system of equal partners. If we are going to be equal partners, why should we introduce unequal legislation?

Eric Pickles: Has the hon. Gentleman paid the slightest attention to this debate? He has been an assiduous attender, but does he understand that the French are right to introduce legislation on labelling? Does he understand that it is reasonable for the Germans, and for us, to introduce such legislation? I hope that the Bill will be a platform for pan-European legislation, which I believe would be a good thing. We have to start somewhere, however, and my Bill is a good start.

Chris Bryant: If the hon. Gentleman really wanted this Bill or similar provisions to be the platform for pan-European legislation, he could have introduced them by means of Conservative Members of the European Parliament. There is now a perfectly decent method whereby the legislative process can be started in the European Parliament. However, the Bill's underlying tenor is precisely as I have suggested.

Eric Pickles: That is an outrage—

Chris Bryant: Sorry?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order.

Eric Pickles: I apologise, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I heard myself speaking and realised that it was my voice. I am so sorry.

Chris Bryant: I did not hear what the hon. Gentleman said, so I cannot get too excited about it.
	As I said, my main concern is to speak on behalf of United Kingdom consumers and as a Welsh patriot who wants Welsh products to be available both elsewhere in the United Kingdom—so that it is a delight to walk into Sainsbury's in Islington and see Welsh products proudly displayed with a nice little Welsh dragon—and beyond.

Bill Wiggin: How can the hon. Gentleman be sure without a Bill such as this one that the little Welsh dragon that he sees in Islington is labelling a genuinely Welsh product?

Chris Bryant: The hon. Gentleman makes a point, but it is not the point of the Bill.

Bill Wiggin: Yes, it is.

Chris Bryant: The Bill will make no difference. Not only is it likely to fall at every legal hurdle it encounters, it does not explain how legislation introduced solely in the United Kingdom will affect the sale of Welsh dragons in Catalonia, Torino and other parts of Europe. I am trying to make that point. Those who think only about whether Welsh products will be sold only in the United Kingdom have small minds that need to be enlarged.

Bill Wiggin: indicated dissent

Chris Bryant: Is the hon. Gentleman trying to intervene?

Bill Wiggin: I am grateful for the opportunity to do so. I am in despair listening to the hon. Gentleman. So far today there has been some consensus in the Chamber that British consumers should have the opportunity to know what they are buying when they go shopping. The Bill seeks to achieve that objective. By going down a Europhobic, Eurosceptic route, the hon. Gentleman has completely lost the consensus and—

Eric Pickles: The plot.

Bill Wiggin: Indeed. I despair for those in my constituency who farm. They, above all, want the opportunity for shoppers and consumers to know what they are buying.

Chris Bryant: I do not question the hon. Gentleman's sincerity in wanting to achieve a laudable and honourable objective—ensuring that everyone has genuine information on the food that they eat; I think that every hon. Member agrees that that is a laudable and commendable objective—but the Bill will not achieve that objective because it does not stand up legally within the European Union.
	Moreover, I think that the Bill prevents us from achieving a bigger objective: the creation of a Europe-wide labelling system that enables Welsh dragons to appear in shops in Madrid, as they do already, and elsewhere across Europe, giving people some confidence about what they are buying. I do not think that the Bill will achieve that objective.
	One tiny issue—I apologise to the House if it has already been raised today—is how Scotland is treated. Scotland is not included in the Bill.

Eric Pickles: It has a devolved Parliament.

Chris Bryant: I understand that it has devolved powers. However, that only underlines the point that we should not be creating separate legislation in England and Wales, but seeking a Europe-wide settlement of the issue. That is why I would push my right hon. Friend and his ministerial colleagues to work towards a better Europe-wide resolution.

Bill Wiggin: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Chris Bryant: No. I have given way plenty of times and I am about to conclude.
	I believe that the Bill is flawed, and not in a way that could be rectified, improved, ameliorated or tidied up in Committee. I believe that it is so fatally flawed and so potentially dangerous to the business and farming interests of people in this country that we should throw it out, not just lock, but lock, stock and barrel.

Stephen O'Brien: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Brentwood and Ongar (Mr. Pickles) on achieving such a high position in the private Members' Bill ballot and selecting this Bill. As is well known, it deals with a topic that is close to my heart and affects the interests of those who operate in the rural economy, and everyone who lives, works and shops in towns and villages in my constituency and up and down the land. Hon. Members on both sides of the House should congratulate my hon. Friend on raising a key issue for the confidence of consumers and the need to rebuild confidence in the rural economy which sustains the livelihoods of so many people—particularly in the light of recent events, not least the foot and mouth crisis. I was enormously impressed by my hon. Friend's straightforward analysis in introducing the Bill.
	I know that it is not usual to criticise the preceding speaker, but the comments by the hon. Member for Rhondda (Mr. Bryant) were a departure from the broadly constructive tone of all the other speeches today. I hope that I will be able to address some of his points in detail. He was certainly flailing around with a number of issues in an attempt to claim that the Bill was flawed ab initio, although it was difficult to see how he could substantiate the serious points that he raised.
	In general, we have had an enjoyable and important debate, not least because it gave rise to a degree of levity. We discovered that the hon. Member for Cleethorpes (Shona McIsaac) certainly has a passion for food and was able to describe all sorts of recipes. We were all struggling to find which part of the Bill they related to, but we got there in the end.
	The debate identified the enormous importance that the Bill gives to the tied interests between producers and consumers. As is well known by all who have taken the time to study this topic, our food labelling and food standards regulations are second to none by comparison with any country in the world, and that is absolutely right. That enormous body of regulation goes hand in hand with the quality and standards of production that our farmers are able to maintain. As I said in 2000 when I introduced the Second Reading of my Bill, which was subsequently amended by my hon. Friend the Member for Brentwood and Ongar, it is clear that the insistence upon identifying country of origin and standards of production is needed by consumers and producers in order to give people confidence in our products. What has changed is the departmental responsibility for the Bill. It has moved from what was the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food—now the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs—to the Department of Health, which is why the Minister of State, Department of Health, the right hon. Member for Barrow and Furness (Mr. Hutton), is present.
	Although I understand the thinking behind that—not least with the introduction of the Food Standards Act 1999—there is a residual concern that the necessary value chain between producers and consumers has been divided, whereas in the past there was an attempt to ensure that it was brought together. That is important in the context of the Bill, because much of the presentation has depended on looking at the problem purely from a farmer's point of view. Of course it is important for all hon. Members who represent rural constituencies to consider what opportunities there are to support farmers and all those who produce from the land, be that cereal or meat. However, their support will be effective only if it coincides with the interests of consumers.
	Although I welcome the Minister's presence, there is concern that food safety issues, on which the Department of Health naturally has an angle, have been over-emphasised and that we should instead be examining the total value chain from producers to consumers. I do not think that accountability is necessarily an issue, but farmers and all those who are engaged in the rural economy have recognised the shift which occurred between Second Reading of the original Bill on 3 March 2000, and now. It will be interesting to hear what different arguments the Minister will make. The subject was constructively discussed on 3 March last year.

John Hutton: The hon. Gentleman raises an important issue. I understood that the official Opposition supported the split between DEFRA, which remains responsible for the food industry, and the Department of Health, which is responsible for food safety. Is that no longer their view?

Stephen O'Brien: The support was genuinely given and that remains our position. The Bill does not merely cover food safety. It relates to consumer confidence, choice and rights to information so that people get what they think they are buying. Many people want to support the British rural economy, and farmers markets are doing an effective job in that regard. Food labelling has a double accountability, both for safety and for the broader sector.

John Hutton: Just so that no one is in any doubt, the views that I give will not be just those of the Department of Health. My concerns are also held by DEFRA.

Stephen O'Brien: I am grateful to the Minister for confirming that he will represent the Government view. I am not so reassured by his expression of concern. However, I am sure that we will be able to address that either today or in Committee.
	When the former Agriculture Minister responded in the previous debate, she highlighted the Government's belief that the existing law was sufficient to deal with misleading, inaccurate or insufficient labelling. In addition, she feared that the Bill might not comply with the relevant provisions of EU law.
	On the first point, it became apparent that the issues surrounding food labelling under regulation are encapsulated by guidance notes given to trading standards officers. They are not enforceable by way of law, but they do govern the expectations as to how trading standards officers should perform their duties. It is not even a statutory code in the same sense as the highway code, a point I made in our previous debate on the issue.
	There have been a few moves since we last debated this about 18 months ago. However, there are still many instances of insufficient information on food packaging. Survey after survey shows a large body of opinion and evidence that consumers do not trust food labels. Not only do they find it difficult to find or understand the information contained on certain labelling—they may have to search long and hard to find a very small letter representing the country of origin, for example—but the information is often encapsulated in great wodges of complex, detailed, small-print material, which creates difficulties for people whose lives are busy.
	It is of course important to have such information there, not least on nutritional content, but there has been a proposal, which the Bill would facilitate, to consider a certification procedure for the country of origin. Perhaps holograms could be used, but whatever the method, it would be convincing. It would enhance consumer confidence if the labelling contained a kite-mark, certification or accreditation that encapsulated, providing that it was properly publicised, the nutritional, vitamin and GMO content as well as contents and production standards information. I think that that should be considered in Committee because it would help address the very serious points of the hon. Members for Cleethorpes and for Falmouth and Cambourne (Candy Atherton). The hon. Member for Brent, North (Mr. Gardiner) also raised the very important subject of the allergen content. There is the 1 per cent. rule, but even below a content of 1 per cent. there can be a real risk for young children in particular and anybody who suffers that level of sensitivity.

Shona McIsaac: My hon. Friend the Member for Brent, North (Mr. Gardiner) referred to nut allergies. How will the Bill relate to restaurant food? Growing numbers of people eat out and as far as I can see there is no way that the Bill would give consumers in restaurants any information. The restaurateur would have to choose to say where the food on a menu came from.

Stephen O'Brien: The hon. Lady is right. Clause 4(2) states:
	"Where food is sold otherwise than to the ultimate consumer, the information required by this Act may appear on commercial documents relating to the food, provided that it also appears on the outermost packaging of the food."
	Let us take the example of buying a steak in a pub restaurant. How do we know that it comes from Scotland, even though its description on the menu as Aberdeen Angus might be intended to imply that, and not Botswana or Paraguay? Although food regulations govern information provided on the outermost packaging, the difficulty is with the menu. The information necessary to help the consumer choose should be given at the point of consumption and choice.
	At the bottom of the menu—not necessarily by every item—there should be a small indication that, for example, the food was not all from the United Kingdom. Then people who were concerned about that would be able to inquire further. If the restaurateur chose, he could say precisely where each ingredient came from—but of course we must recognise that that could be burdensome, given that food is often sourced from different countries.
	That was a long answer to the hon. Lady's intervention. I thought that the Minister was intending to say something about it, too—but perhaps he feels that I have covered the ground sufficiently, and it does not need any further explanation. [Interruption.] The Minister says that I have muddied the water sufficiently. I thank him; I regard that as a badge of honour.

Shona McIsaac: Is the hon. Gentleman saying that the commercial document is the menu?

Stephen O'Brien: If a menu is not a commercial document, what is? Patently, it is an invitation to treat, which I think would be regarded as a commercial document according to most tests, because one cannot treat unless one is intending to undertake, or is in the course of, a commercial transaction. Treating implies consideration under the law. I do not know whether the hon. Lady wishes to pursue the point, but I am dredging into a deep and distant solicitor's background; I gave up practising 13 years ago, so I hope that I attended the right lectures to give her that answer.

Shona McIsaac: Will the hon. Gentleman explain how the provision can apply only when the commercial documents mentioned in clause 4(3)
	"accompany the food to which they relate at all times"?
	Would the menu have to accompany the food at all times? I am confused by that part of the Bill.

Stephen O'Brien: The hon. Lady makes a fair interpretational criticism. The meaning is indeed intended and fairly clear—but I hope that she will agree that it would be appropriate for discussion in Committee. I do not think that it represents a fundamental flaw.

Chris Bryant: rose—

Stephen O'Brien: I shall move on, because I want to ensure that I give the Minister sufficient time to discuss all the points that have been raised, and I hope that the Bill will find favour with him.
	We have discussed ministerial accountability, and the value chain between consumers and producers, which we recognise is particularly important to our hard-pressed rural economy—represented not least in the constituency of Eddisbury. If I combine my constituency with that of my hon. Friends the Members for North Shropshire (Mr. Paterson) and for Tatton (Mr. Osborne), the total represents the largest milk field in Europe by a wide margin, in terms of both quality and value. These considerations are of intense importance to all our constituents.
	My hon. Friend's Bill contains amendments that address the Government's fundamental criticisms of my Bill, and it is notable that both that Bill, 18 months ago, and the present Bill, have attracted not only the support of the National Farmers Union and the National Pig Association, but the repeated support of the Consumers Association, which has continually said that country of origin labelling needs to be put in place. That is why it is important to make these points about the need for producer and consumer interests to be tied together.
	Notably, my hon. Friend has also enlisted the support of the Food and Drink Federation. That endorsement is a very significant aspect of the presentation of his Bill.

Chris Bryant: Returning to the issue of menus in restaurants, we might all accept that it is nice to know whether a piece of beef comes from Argentina, Scotland or elsewhere, but I am not sure whether the Bill would mean that the country of origin of not only the steak but the peas, the chips and the onion rings would have to be listed, too.

Stephen O'Brien: I hope that the hon. Gentleman will concede that the issue relates to consumer confidence; that would be the focus, especially as regards meat products. The wording of the subsection—like that of all Bills—is sufficiently general to ensure that, in this case, the detail could cover aspects of normal commercial life. That could include menus as well as other things. The hon. Gentleman's point would be a proper one for Committee. I hope he will agree that it would not form part of his criticism that the Bill was fundamentally flawed and should not proceed. I do not agree with those points and do not think that he substantiated them.
	The measure presents the Government with a genuine and easy opportunity to further a matter of deep interest to the constituent interests that I listed earlier. The Bill has been sufficiently well thought through. Clauses 3(1) and 4(1)(e) incorporate changes which address the main concerns articulated by the then Minister of State at MAFF when we debated my Bill.
	When the Minister of State, Department of Health responds, it is important for us to understand whether he has genuine concerns about the underlying concepts of the Bill. In the debate on my Bill, the Government expressed sympathy but then went on to explain why they would not support it. That caused much consternation to many of those constituent interests throughout the country and there was a great deal of publicity about it. The matter will not go unnoticed; it is of deep concern to many people.
	The issues that lie behind the Bill are of sufficient moment for us to have held a serious debate today. We have to decide how quickly we want to make these improvements: either by means of a Bill or by continuing ministerial negotiations in Europe on various delegated aspects of authority and regulation. Despite numerous warm words—I do not deny their warmth—progress has been marginal and action has been limited. I do not doubt that although the negotiations in the halls of the European Union may look serene on the surface, frantic pedalling goes on below; but for those who are not involved, it is the outcomes that matter. There is no sense that real progress has been made in the various negotiating forums of the EU. It seems that we are being forced to go at the slowest pace—that of those in the EU who have interests to protect.
	The UK has some of the best and most developed food labelling and food standards regulation and authorities. It will be a bit of a disappointment and certainly a surprise if the Minister does not want to take this opportunity to make progress. The Government often want to take the lead: the Bill would give them the chance to lead in Europe and to demonstrate that our country can add value to the standards regime throughout Europe. We should do that, because we all want to raise standards. We want to celebrate not only the regional diversity of foods—that could be continued under the existing regulations—but also the countries of origin, so that there will no longer be confusion as to the interpretation of current EU law. We could thus avoid disparity, for example, between the actions taken by France in relation to our beef and our actions on other matters. We can show real leadership, and the Bill offers the Government and the Minister a genuine opportunity to do so.
	It is difficult to resist asking: why not try to introduce this legislation; why not send it to Committee; why not let it be the vehicle to explore these issues and ensure that the EU can learn from these debates rather than going through the existing labyrinthine procedures?
	One important aspect that has been overlooked so far—it is the only point that my hon. Friend the Member for Brentwood and Ongar did not make in his opening remarks—is that the Bill has a huge advantage which all Governments look for: it does not represent a burden on the taxpayer. To the extent that labels will have to be changed, there is a cost implication for the commercial interests affected, but given the already large number of packaging and labelling regulations, the Bill merely represents an adjustment. There is unlikely to be a cost burden on businesses.
	I therefore recommend that the Minister look favourably on the Bill. In pure policy terms, the Conservative party would like to keep this attractive policy for itself because it would cost taxpayers nothing. Surely that must be of interest to the Minister.

Shona McIsaac: If the Bill becomes law and businesses are required to state the country of origin on food labels, how would infringements be dealt with? How does the hon. Gentleman envisage enforcing the Bill? If it is through trading standards officers, that would represent a cost to council tax payers and other UK taxpayers.

Stephen O'Brien: The Government would have to ensure that they were happy with any enforcement regime. One would expect them to give a steer. I hesitate to be presumptuous, but in terms of enforcement, it would be up to trading standards officers using guidelines that would flow from future legislation—

Eric Pickles: My hon. Friend is right that I did not raise the matter in my opening remarks, for some of the reasons that the hon. Member for Cleethorpes mentioned. The Bill would not create a special category of enforcement officer; enforcement would fall naturally within the existing regime and would fit the job of existing trading standards officers. Admittedly, they would have more to do, but that would represent a de minimis rather than a substantial burden on the public purse, either nationally or locally. It would certainly pale into insignificance compared with the cavalier way in which the Government place new obligations on local authorities.

Stephen O'Brien: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Moreover, without the Bill, trading standards officers, for instance, will continue to have to operate under guidelines that are difficult to interpret because the body of regulation and law that sits behind them is vast, complex and detailed. If existing guidelines are to be properly adhered to and well policed, either the number of trading standards officers will have to be increased to instil the confidence that consumers seek, or this country will have to accept that we cannot deliver for consumers and that existing labelling is sufficiently robust to provide confidence.
	If the Bill were enacted, accountability would be in place. Trading standards officers exist in any event and they would simply have a new regime to enforce. I therefore see no serious cost implications.

John Hutton: I thank the hon. Gentleman again for allowing me to intervene. In my experience as a Minister, there is no such thing as a cost-free solution to these problems. I ask the hon. Gentleman and the hon. Member for Brentwood and Ongar to reflect on two matters. I assume that, if the Bill is enacted, there will be a risk of more prosecutions. Can the hon. Gentlemen explain the position of an English retailer who tries to sell on products supplied by a European Union country when the retailer's advice is that the legislation is ineffective at a European level? Does that not expose the English retailer to the risk of prosecution on a matter that is entirely outwith his or her control? Is that not unfair?

Stephen O'Brien: I shall not pretend that I am able to give a knee-jerk response to that point. Serious legal advice will need to be considered. On the point about cross-border infringement and domestic law interacting with EU and international law, I recognise that the point about conflict of law might need to be addressed. More importantly, however, the liability issue affecting the retailer could be excluded by contract, and there may need to representation by a supplier in another country. That is a matter of contract terms, so it would not be covered on the face of the Bill.

Eric Pickles: It might be helpful if the Minister could arrange for the legal advice on the labelling of British beef, French pork and German poultry to be placed in the Library.

Stephen O'Brien: I am sure that the Minister will intervene immediately if he wishes to accept that offer.

John Hutton: I shall duck that invitation now, but I shall come to it in my remarks.
	I am intrigued by the line of argument of the hon. Member for Eddisbury. He seems to be suggesting that the law of contract would supersede the Bill. That is the first time I have heard that argument. Is that how he and the hon. Member for Brentwood and Ongar envisage the legislation working in practice?

Stephen O'Brien: I will attempt to answer that point. However, I do not want to go too far down that track, because it is highly presumptuous to debate a legal argument on the Floor of the House when we cannot have the benefit of receiving expert legal advice. It would be very helpful if the advice given to Ministers were placed in the Library. In fact, a former Attorney-General, Lord Lyell, has suggested that the legal advice on which Ministers were acting may have been flawed and that their concerns about not complying with EU law should and could be overcome.
	Contract terms can apply only within the privity of contract between the supplier and the customer—the retailer in the Minister's example—but general law relates to who would suffer damage. Ultimately, the consumer is damaged if he purchases something that has a false, misleading or insufficient label, but the extent of that damage will always have to be shown.
	Penalties relate to the regime of trading standards and to the commercial expectations that will be set up as a result of the Bill's becoming law. The Government will obviously wish to explore that point in Committee, and I welcome that.
	Will the EU negotiations or a Bill of this nature be the first to produce the outcomes and results for which consumers and farmers are clamouring? It is clear from the track record to date that the answer is a Bill of this nature. If EU negotiations, however, produced something quicker than this Bill, that would be to the advantage of all European states. It would demonstrate that we have shown the leadership that the Government claim. Parliamentarians in this country have greater expertise, experience and knowledge of food labelling than those in EU member states and we have a responsibility to bring them to bear for the benefit of all member states. That is the nature of partnership. We should show our leadership.
	The hon. Members for Stroud (Mr. Drew) and for Brent, North made positive, helpful and committed contributions. The technology is rapidly developing to enable the provisions in the Bill to become effective and practicable. I was particularly taken by the comments of my hon. Friends the Members for Leominster (Mr. Wiggin), for Tatton and for South-West Bedfordshire (Andrew Selous). They spoke passionately about the interests of their farmers and constituents. The hon. Members for Falmouth and Camborne and for Cleethorpes also made helpful contributions that should be taken into account when the Bill is considered in Committee.
	I urge the Minister to look favourably on the Bill. It is not for any party political or simple knockabout reasons that it has merited being introduced a second time. Many personal experiences have been related today. Hon. Members on both sides of the House recognise that their constituents are anxious about their ability to have confidence in labels and the information that they are given about food when, almost daily in our newspapers, so much of the news throws doubt on the safety and integrity of the food that we eat.
	Producers and farmers in Britain are committed to the highest food production standards, especially compared with their competitors in Europe and the world. Pig producers, for example, have had to invest heavily to take pigs out of stalls and tethers while other EU member states manage to get a derogation. We vigilantly police the regulations, which are applied at great cost to a depressed sector of the market that does not receive subsidy from the EU. Its largest competitor, Denmark, has now obtained a further derogation for seven years, to 2014.
	There is a deep imbalance in the marketplace. The Bill will go a long way to help redress that by empowering consumers. That is better than imposing measures from the top down. Consumers tell us that they want to support our farmers and our rural economy in these exceptionally tough times. My hon. Friend the Member for Tatton demonstrated how much farmers' incomes had collapsed. There is great pressure on the farmgate price. The power of distribution and supermarket chains in the marketplace has left farmers and those who use land to produce added value for us at a disadvantage. They need the fairness, honesty, clarity and simplicity that the Bill would provide to label their products in such a way as to give British consumers the chance to make a confident choice. I again urge the Minister to look favourably on the Bill.

Andrew Dismore: I congratulate the hon. Member for Brentwood and Ongar (Mr. Pickles) on introducing the Bill, which raises some important issues. I apologise for having missed part of his speech. I came prepared to speak on a different subject. I am afraid that I always follow my old sea scout motto "Be prepared." I had a speech ready to make on the Bill, which I had to go and fetch, and I am concerned there may be insufficient time before 2.30 pm for me to make all the points that I worked up last night.
	It is rather apposite—third time lucky, perhaps—that I have been called to speak this afternoon. Last week I came prepared to speak on the Marine Wildlife Conservation Bill and never got my chance because we ran out of time. It is interesting that we have moved from Barney the lobster's reprieve to shellfish and crustaceans, which are referred to in the Bill.
	My starting point is to pick up from the last intervention made by the hon. Member for Eddisbury (Mr. O'Brien). He said that enforcement was a de minimis matter for trading standards officers. If it is, why is the Bill being introduced? I should have thought that ensuring that the legislation was properly policed would require considerable extra resources on the part of trading standards officers, which would undoubtedly have an impact on the cost to local authorities and, indirectly, on the council tax payer and the Government.
	I was interested to hear about the family background of my hon. Friend the Member for Cleethorpes (Shona McIsaac). She and I have something in common. My father was a chef, and I grew up in the hotel and catering trade, so I also have an interest in matters culinary. Perhaps we could swap some recipes later. I certainly do not intend to test your patience, Mr. Deputy Speaker, by going through some of the issues that we talked about earlier in that respect.
	One of my concerns about the Bill is that it does not deal with the dreaded issue of E numbers. We have talked a lot today about the extent to which consumers scrutinise labels on packages. I am less concerned about where food comes from than about what chemicals are in it. We have not addressed that today.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Rhondda (Mr. Bryant) referred to the Bill's relationship to Scotland. As the hon. Member for Brentwood and Ongar said, Scotland is excluded from the Bill. It would be peculiar if we did not look at the impact of the Bill within the UK, let alone worldwide, as it is not confined to the EU. It would also be peculiar if people were able to sell things in Scotland that they were unable to sell in England and Wales. We could have dumping arrangements, with dodgy products being shipped north over the border to unsuspecting Scots. Do Conservative Members of the Scottish Parliament intend to propose a similar Bill for Scotland?

Eric Pickles: That is the beauty of devolution. They are masters of their own destiny, as we are in this Chamber.

Andrew Dismore: I can only assume from that that there is no intention on the part of the Conservative party to propose such a Bill in Scotland. Why should the Scots lose out? Are they to have less protection than those of us in England and Wales?

Stephen O'Brien: Last year, a Member of the Scottish Parliament proposed a similar Bill relating only to meat products. It was discussed at length and has made rather better progress than the original Bill has done here. I hope that, today, we can redress that imbalance with cross-border uniform regulation.

Andrew Dismore: I am grateful for the hon. Gentleman's clarification, as it would be nonsense if we had different provisions in different parts of the United Kingdom. In that context, I include Northern Ireland.
	Much has been said about the legality of the Bill in the context of the EU. My hon. Friend the Member for Rhondda explained the issue fully. As a lawyer, I am aware that my hon. Friend made some important points. The hon. Member for Brentwood and Ongar said that the Bill would comply with European legislation. He may be right, or my hon. Friend may be right. However, I am absolutely certain that the Bill in its current form will provide a recipe for making a lot of fat-cat lawyers a lot fatter in the law courts. It does not really matter who is right, because I can see that there will be a feeding frenzy for lawyers interpreting the Bill, both here and in the European Court of Justice. I will leave the detailed analysis of that to my hon. Friend the Member for Rhondda.
	In terms of our international trading obligations, I wish to refer to the general agreement on tariffs and trade and the relationship between ourselves and the rest of the world. My constituency is multicultural. People who live in Hendon have come from all over the world. We have food shops selling produce from all over the world that my constituents require for their recipes and cultural requirements. I ask the hon. Member for Brentwood and Ongar to consider the implications of the Bill for people using food products from the Indian subcontinent, for example, who may find great difficulty in complying with requirements.
	I do not know whether the Bill will comply with GATT. We have had the analysis of EU law, but article 22 of the 1947 treaty says:
	"Subject to the requirement that such measures are not applied in a manner which would constitute a means of arbitrary or unjustifiable discrimination between countries where the same conditions prevail, or a disguised restriction on international trade, nothing . . . shall be construed to prevent the adoption or enforcement by any contracting party of measures:
	(a) necessary to protect public morals;
	(b) necessary to protect human, animal or plant life or health".
	I am not sure whether what is proposed by the hon. Member for Brentwood and Ongar falls within that general exception. If it does not, we could fall foul of much wider international obligations—going way beyond the EU.
	The Government have worked hard to try to deal with the matter in the interim through the publication of guidance notes, a copy of which I have here and from which I was going to quote at rather more length than I have time for. Perhaps I can make the point by referring only to paragraphs 10, 11, 12, 13, and 14. I do not intend to go through the notes in detail, but the point that arises from them relates to our earlier argument:
	"The true place of origin of a food should always be given if the label as a whole would otherwise imply that the food comes from, or has been made in, a different place or area. Consumers are, however, unlikely to expect products such as Chelsea buns, York ham, Madras curry or Frankfurters to come from those areas in the absence of other material on the label suggesting that they do."
	I challenge the guidance with regard to York ham. The point that arises from the guidance is that we must adopt a common-sense approach to such issues. The notes go on to refer to the sort of things that might mislead people, such as flags on labelling.
	There is nothing to stop the voluntary labelling of products or to stop British producers putting a Union flag on British produce so that people can be assured that what they are buying is British. That is a far more sensible way of proceeding in the absence of international agreements. I have much sympathy with the hon. Member for Brentwood and Ongar in promoting the Bill, but he needs to keep a sense of proportion in that respect.
	Brent Cross shopping centre, which is one of the country's largest premier shopping centres, is in my constituency. The British Retail Consortium has many members at Brent Cross and I consulted them on their views on the Bill, which were clear. They said:
	"There is already a very effective labelling system in place which people understand and is clear.
	There are universally set standards which everyone must adhere to . . . not different standards in different countries."
	They say that, because retailers apply universal standards regardless, people can have confidence in such standards. They consider that
	"Country of origin should not make a difference."
	They also make the important point that
	"All surveys show that top of the agenda for consumers is price".
	They say that better packaging, as sought by hon. Friend the Member for Brentwood and Ongar,
	"would push up costs and would put consumers off. It is price over country of origin."
	They add:
	"'Buying British' slogans"—
	and, for that matter, packaging—
	"are a nice bonus if they work—but consumers are generally not taken in."
	The supermarkets are prepared to work when there are issues of public health, as their work on pigmeat and their co-operation on the little red tractor scheme, to which the hon. Member for Leominster (Mr. Wiggin) referred, shows. I am not sure whether the little red dragon symbol is an attempt by the Welsh community to pass off goods as Welsh, or whether one can have a little red dragon riding a red tractor in order to make both points. The fact that the little red tractor scheme has been so successful is an indication of what can be done voluntarily.

Eric Pickles: Can the hon. Gentleman explain why the National Farmers Union supports the Bill?

Andrew Dismore: I have had no discussions with the NFU about the Bill, but I take the hon. Gentleman's point. The NFU is of course on the side of producers; I am on the side of consumer and I am making points on behalf of the retail trade, which has a more direct relationship with the consumer than the farmer.

Eric Pickles: Can the hon. Gentleman tell me why the Consumers Association supports the Bill?

Andrew Dismore: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the information that I have just cited from the retail trade. I do not have the time to go through many of the arguments. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman and I can have a discussion over a cup of English tea—which, presumably has come from India; I am not sure how it would be labelled—and I can go through the remainder of my evidence in more detail.
	The point that the hon. Gentleman made earlier about the schemes that have been set up overseas is important. I have quite a lot of information about the labelling systems for French pigmeat and German poultry. The hon. Gentleman makes a valid point, but what is important is that those schemes have been able to be produced within the existing legal framework of the EU, and there is no reason why we cannot do the same. It is interesting that French production is covered by what is called the pigmeat identity guarantee—PIG for short. I am surprised that in such a francophone country, it is not called something that spells out as "COCHON", but there we have it.
	I challenge the hon. Gentleman on a major point on behalf of my Jewish constituents. They have raised a number of issues, including how kosher labelling would be affected by the Bill. This goes back to the 25 per cent. rule. The Federation of Synagogues, which is based in my constituency, has written to ask me to ensure that nothing in the Bill would in any way undermine the use of the word "kosher". It is concerned about the 25 per cent. threshold.
	This goes back to the discussion on nuts. Certain food products contain small amounts of ingredients—under 2 per cent.—that are not listed on the packaging. If those ingredients are non-kosher, they can render the entire product non-kosher and unsuitable for consumption by orthodox Jews. The federation would be interested in ensuring that food labelling lists all ingredients and their percentages.

Eric Pickles: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Andrew Dismore: I am afraid that I have to make progress.
	The federation is also concerned about the potential impact of the parts of the Bill that relate to animal welfare standards on shechita, the method of slaughter of meat for the Jewish community. It says that there is often much misunderstanding about that. Conventional slaughter can often create far more problems for animal welfare than shechita, for which a Jewish slaughterer needs six years training. The federation is concerned that the Bill could undermine the whole market for shechita products.
	The most important issue that I raise on behalf of the Jewish community is the impact in relation to Israel. I am not sure whether the hon. Gentleman is aware—if he has been studying Hansard, he will be, because the matter has been raised in the House on a number of occasions—that there is a live issue in relation to the labelling of produce from settlements on the West Bank. At the moment, those products are labelled as produce of Israel. That is a result of quite a lot of negotiation between the Israelis and the EU. A modus vivendi has been reached.
	According to the declaration of principles signed in 1993 by the Government of Israel and the Palestinian National Authority, and witnessed by the United States and the Russian Federation, the status of settlements is an issue that remains to be dealt with and considered in later negotiations. Until then, it was agreed by the EU directive of customs that goods produced there will be treated as all other Israeli goods.
	The issue of rules of origin for a narrow group of Israeli products manufactured in various parts of the country is under discussion continually between the EU, Israel and the Palestinian National Authority. Pending a restart of the status negotiations—obviously, one hopes that there will be a successful resolution—the Bill could open a major can of worms, in that there are elements within the Palestinian National Authority who would not like products to be labelled as produce of Israel, but who demand that they be labelled produce of the occupied territories.
	If the Bill were to go through, it could have a major impact on the situation in the middle east. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman, who is a member of the Conservative Friends of Israel, has not thought through the implications of the measure. I think that he should reflect on the perhaps unintended, but worldwide implications of his proposals.
	I would like to raise a series of detailed questions. However, there is not time to do that in detail, although I ask the hon. Gentleman to let me know, perhaps afterwards, why the Bill does not apply to regulations 26, 27 and 28 of the Food Labelling Regulations 1996, nor to regulation 29, which deals with items from vending machines. It is probably more appropriate that it should apply to regulations 26, 27 and 28.
	The Bill would require labels to refer to production standards that are lower than those in this country. What is the position regarding production standards that are different from ours and in which some elements may be lower and others higher? Why is clause 4(1) conjunctive rather than disjunctive? To return to the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Rhondda, conforming with paragraphs (a) to (e) of that measure would necessitate so much labelling and packaging that it would undermine some food producers' financial viability. Clause 4(2) refers to commercial documents. Does that include those in electronic format? I ask because much trade is carried out using computers rather than paper transactions.
	I have a huge amount of information about the Bill and many questions to ask the hon. Member for Brentwood and Ongar, who has made some important points, but I know that the Minister wants to reply to the debate, so I hope that I will be able to put my points to the hon. Gentleman in more detail in Committee or on Report.

John Hutton: One of the unfortunate consequences of being the Minister responding to a debate on a private Member's Bill on a Friday is that, because of the nature of the debate and the commitments of right hon. and hon. Members, most Members have gone by the time one gets to speak. That is unfortunate on this occasion because we have heard 12 good speeches from hon. Members on both sides of the House: my hon. Friends the Members for Brent, North (Mr. Gardiner), for Stroud (Mr. Drew), for Falmouth and Camborne (Ms Atherton), for Cleethorpes (Shona McIsaac), for Hendon (Mr. Dismore) and for Rhondda (Mr. Bryant), and the hon. Members for Tatton (Mr. Osborne), for Leominster (Mr. Wiggin), for South-West Bedfordshire (Andrew Selous) and for Teignbridge (Richard Younger-Ross) and, of course, the hon. Member for Brentwood and Ongar (Mr. Pickles), the promoter of the Bill. He spoke very well and I will say a little more about his remarks in a moment.
	As we all know, this is the second time round for the hon. Member for Eddisbury (Mr. O'Brien), who spoke for the Opposition, so I assume that he needed less time to prepare for the debate than the rest of us, particularly myself. When the hon. Gentleman introduced his Bill, he spoke for an hour and 10 minutes, but today he managed to condense his remarks into a pithy 37 minutes. That was quite an achievement because, naturally, he and many other hon. Members feel very strongly about the subject.
	I was struck by the high quality of the contributions. There is obviously a great deal of expertise on the subject among hon. Members on both sides of the Chamber, and that knowledge was on display. I was struck also by a fact that will determine my subsequent remarks, which is that it would be wrong to characterise the concerns about the Bill, particularly those expressed by Labour Members, as representing a lack of concern about animal welfare or consumer safety and choice.
	My hon. Friends have sought to emphasise the point that any disagreement is about means, not objectives. My concern about the Bill is not about its content, on which there is broad general agreement. We want to improve consumer choice, and I shall set out some of my arguments about that in a moment. However, we must try to achieve that aim within a framework that is compatible with our treaty obligations and the agreements that we have entered into with European Union member states. Most of the legislation that governs food safety, and food labelling in particular, was introduced by the Conservative party. In a nutshell, my concern about the hon. Gentleman's Bill—on which I shall expand, as he would expect me to—is that his proposal for dealing with genuine consumer concerns would take the United Kingdom outwith the framework of European obligations and legal requirements into which we have freely entered. Generally, that is a bad way to make policy.

Eric Pickles: The Minister ducked a question of mine earlier, but I shall put that to one side. He will recall that I said that I did not mind how the Bill's objectives were achieved. I am not suggesting that we break our treaty obligations. The Minister may surprise me and conclude his speech before 2.30 pm; the Bill will go into Committee and he can put his valuable expertise to good use. Alternatively, he can use his expertise to pursue the Bill's objectives via another route. I do not mind which route is taken; I just want the matter to be addressed.

John Hutton: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman. My preferred way, and certainly the Government's preferred way, of making progress on these issues is to do so within the framework of European law, as we are required to do. I shall deal later with the hon. Gentleman's challenge to my hon. Friend the Member for Rhondda about an hour ago, on the precise legal framework in which that debate needs to take place. However, his intervention is helpful and shows a generosity of spirit about the eventual fate of his Bill, which may not reach Committee. If he makes further interventions, it is unlikely to help his cause; he will be disappointed to learn that I am more than happy to give way if he wishes to make such observations.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Brent, North told us about his encounter with a clam in New York and its unfortunate consequences for his stomach; I do not want to say anything more about that.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Stroud made an effective and well informed speech. I am glad to see that he is in Chamber; he speaks out consistently and effectively in the House on his constituents' behalf. The hon. Member for Tatton demonstrated his charming and urbane nature. If the new shadow Leader of the House has his way in relation to Back-Bench Conservative Members, particularly new Members, he will not have done himself any harm at all.
	In an otherwise good speech, the hon. Member for Leominster came close to spoiling what the hon. Members for Brentwood and Ongar and for Eddisbury described as a consensual attitude by questioning the values and assumptions of those of us who have reservations about the Bill. It is not because we have less enthusiasm or commitment to securing the principles of animal welfare and so on to which the hon. Member for Leominster alluded that we air those reservations. It is usually a bad idea for Members to claim a monopoly on concern or compassion in these issues; unwittingly, I suspect, the hon. Gentleman overstepped the line. However, I was glad to hear what he had for breakfast; I, too, am a Weetabix fan. From his remarks, and the frost with which he delivered them, he must have had three; I tend to stick to one.

Stephen O'Brien: That might explain why he is not in his seat.

John Hutton: He is not in the Chamber now; perhaps it has something to do with the clams that my hon. Friend the Member for Brent, North talked about.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Falmouth and Camborne spoke effectively on behalf of her constituents, as did the hon. Member for South-West Bedfordshire. My hon. Friend the Member for Cleethorpes referred to her nether regions, which made me slightly anxious. However, she meant the nether regions of her fridge, which is an important clarification. Thanks to her, I know a great deal more about low-fat mayonnaise than I did at the start of our debate. Perhaps she will let me have some of her recipes at the end of our proceedings.
	The hon. Member for Teignbridge is not here now and was not here for most of our debate. It is appropriate that he made the shortest speech today—three minutes—as he was in the Chamber for the shortest period.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Rhondda spoke very well, and was the first Member to express concern about the Bill's legal basis. I thought that he struck the right balance between wanting to see improvements on the issue, as do we all, and finding the right legal vehicle to realise that ambition. For reasons that I shall explain in a moment, I tell the hon. Member for Brentwood and Ongar that his Bill is not the right legal vehicle to reach that goal.
	I am also grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Rhondda for allowing the House to learn a little more about Mr. Creamy, whoever he is. I have not had any Mr. Creamy products, but I am sure that my hon. Friend will let me have some eventually.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Hendon—as always the voice of common sense in our Friday debates—made one of his shortest ever Friday speeches, although it was not short on quality. He was certainly right to take us outside the narrow confines of Europe in our discussion of the Bill's legal basis. He also quite properly raised issues on the general agreement on tariffs and trade and the world trade rules. When he mentioned those issues, I frantically searched through my speaking notes to see whether there was some mention of them there. Sadly there was not. However, I am quite sure that, as a distinguished lawyer, my hon. Friend was probably right in what he said about them.
	I should like now to deal with the Bill itself and the Government's concerns about it. I very warmly congratulate the hon. Member for Brentwood and Ongar not only on his success in the ballot—I thank him for sharing his tips on how to succeed in the ballot—but on the very thoughtful and dextrous way in which he presented his arguments. He has introduced his Bill very effectively indeed.
	The Bill certainly raises important issues of consumer choice and public information about the food that we choose to eat. Those are important matters to which all hon. Members rightly attach priority and concern on behalf of their constituents, as do the Government. We are all consumers and we expect clear, honest and accurate food labels so that we can make properly informed choices when we go shopping. The Government are committed to improving the accuracy and content of food labels so that they better meet consumers' needs. Consequently, we are not content with the current arrangements for food labelling, and we have submitted detailed proposals to the European Commission, to which I shall return shortly.
	The Government know, because we have asked for consumers' views and conducted consumer research, that consumers are concerned about origin labelling, which is largely the Bill's subject matter. Consumers do not trust some of the declarations that they see, and too often they cannot find origin information when they want it. That has certainly been my own experience.
	The Government therefore share the objectives that have prompted the Bill. My concern is not about the Bill's content or objectives but about its compatibility with the current legislation regulating food labelling requirements, and therefore about the very credibility, enforceability and reliability of the proposals. If passed, the Bill would conflict entirely and be inconsistent with European law. Without any doubt at all, the Bill would be successfully challenged in the courts both by companies and by member states of the European Union and leave the United Kingdom Government exposed to extensive claims for compensation. It would be a pointless act of law making that could not succeed in realising its noble ambitions.
	I should therefore like to do two things in my remarks: spell out in a little more detail why we have arrived at our view on the legal deficiencies that fatally scar the Bill; and set out the wider context in which we can take forward, and I believe will be taking forward, some of the concerns expressed by the hon. Member for Brentwood and Ongar.
	Parliament has rightly decided that responsibility for developing advice on food labelling should fall to the Food Standards Agency. In a moment, I shall describe the agency's strategy on origin labelling and its work on other labelling issues and what the Government are doing both within and beyond Europe to improve the effectiveness of food labelling arrangements.
	European Union and United Kingdom legislation already seek to provide general protection for consumers from false and misleading labels. The protection takes the form of a general requirement that the label must not mislead a purchaser on the characteristics of a food, such as its nature, identity, properties, composition, quantity, durability, origin or provenance, or method of manufacture or production. The protection applies also to the presentation of food, in particular its shape, appearance and packaging and the setting in which it is displayed.
	Additionally, there are extensive and detailed food labelling rules which are harmonised currently at European level. The current rules are in directive 2000/13/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council, consolidating the earlier food labelling directive 79/112/EEC. The clear objective of that legislation is to tackle differences between regimes in different member states to facilitate the necessary free circulation of products.
	Those EU rules specify the minimum amount of information required on food labels and prohibit misleading claims. EU food labelling rules already require food to have a name, carry an indication of its weight, a list of ingredients and so on. Particulars of the place of origin or provenance of a food must be given where failure to do so might mislead a purchaser to a material degree as to its true origin or provenance. These requirements are directly reflected in our own legislation, principally the Food Labelling Regulations 1996, as amended, which were introduced by the previous Conservative Administration.
	In addition to this horizontal legislation, there are specific EU rules on origin labelling for a number of commodities, including most fruit and vegetables. Of course, from next January there will be detailed origin information on beef.
	The food labelling directive severely restricts the scope of all member states for taking action to extend the rules already agreed, which the Bill would clearly do. It is not open to member states to take further action except in so far as it is authorised by the directive or other sector-specific EU legislation.
	There was a quite controversial debate about which provisions of the treaty of Rome were relevant. As my hon. Friend the Member for Rhondda rightly identified, articles 226 and 227 are about enforcement procedures and become relevant where there is a breach of European law. I believe that the Bill would exceed the labelling directive. It would also breach article 10 of the treaty of Rome—the duty to ensure fulfilment of Community requirements—and article 28 on quantitative restrictions on imports. The hon. Member for Brentwood and Ongar might be aware, although he did not refer to it in his speech—I should make it plain that I have only just become aware of this—that in 1985 the UK lost an origin labelling case under article 28. In a moment, I shall say a few words about the so-called Italian pasta case which is directly relevant to the legality of his proposals.
	We know from the jurisprudence from the European Court that labelling as proposed in the Bill is equivalent to a quantitative restriction on trade—[Interruption.] I am sorry that the hon. Member for Brentwood and Ongar does not like that, but it is the current legal advice that the Government have. On the French beef point, the Advocate General's opinion is that France is acting in contravention of EU law when banning imports of British beef. I know that it is not to the hon. Gentleman's liking, but the legal framework—

Stephen O'Brien: As the Minister is rightly placing a lot of reliance on the legal provisions, on behalf of my hon. Friend and myself, I repeat my request that the legal advice should be placed in the Library. Clearly, as so much of the Government's argument turns on that advice, it would be exceptionally helpful for us to have it.

John Hutton: I am happy to write to both hon. Gentlemen setting out the details of the legal argument that we have received, rather than depositing the legal opinion in the Library, as we do not usually do that. I know that the argument has rattled around today about whether the Bill is within or without the European Union legal requirements. We have clear legal advice, not only to my Department, but to the then Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, that the proposed legislation would take us outwith those requirements.
	The Bill proposes that the present origin labelling requirement be replaced with more extensive labelling rules that would make country of origin labelling compulsory in all cases. Clause 1 would extend that requirement to apply to any ingredient that forms more than 25 per cent. by weight of a food. The country of origin, as well as the country of processing or packing, would be required to be given equal prominence, and food produced to less demanding production standards than those applicable in England would need to be appropriately identified. That, in summary, is the hon. Gentleman's proposal today.
	I believe that the measures introduced by the Bill on origin labelling of all food are in clear conflict with our Community obligations under directive 2000/13/EC and amount to measures having equivalent effect to a quantitative restriction on trade in breach of article 28 of the treaty.
	The measures are also in conflict with article 10 of the treaty, which requires every member state to take all appropriate measures, whether general or particular, to ensure fulfilment of the treaty obligations and legislation made under the treaty, and to abstain from any measure which could jeopardise the attainment of the objectives of the treaty. By virtue of section 2(1) of the European Communities Act 1972, the provisions of the EC treaty take precedence over incompatible domestic legislation.
	For all those reasons, if the Bill were to proceed, it would be unenforceable. It would be subject to successful legal challenge by the European Commission, member states, manufacturers, importers and exporters. It is likely that the UK Government would be liable to pay substantial damages to affected interests. There is an unfortunate precedent for that, and I am afraid that I have to remind Conservative Members of the Merchant Shipping Act 1988. The Government found themselves in that situation and the taxpayer had to fund compensation for those basic and fundamental mistakes when the true extent of the treaty requirements was realised.
	Although the Government share the Bill's objectives, we recognise our responsibility to uphold the law as it underpins the European single market. We take that responsibility seriously, as I am sure hon. Members do. Although we agree with the Bill's broad intention to improve labelling, its proposal for unilateral action in England in breach of EU law cannot be countenanced.

Stephen O'Brien: Just in case the Minister does not reach his peroration, will he give an idea of how quickly our requirements can be achieved in Europe if the route outlined in the Bill cannot be followed?

John Hutton: I thought I had reached my peroration. I can place in the Library a copy of the detailed proposals that have been sent to the European Commission outlining how the Government want to improve the origin labelling requirements that we believe are not strong enough. I am not master of the timetable, but we are pursuing the proposals with vigour in the European Commission because we are not satisfied with the extent of consumer protection and how it supports consumer choice. If the hon. Gentleman and other hon. Members want to see details of the proposals, I shall make them available to the House. Although I cannot be specific about the outcome in terms of changes to EU legislation, we are up for this challenge and going at it as quickly as possible.
	The advantage of acting at EU level is explicit. EU rules exist for good reasons. European laws avoid inconsistency and therefore consumer confusion. They ensure that consumers are provided with clear consistent information on labels about the foods that they find on shop shelves, wherever those foods come from. They also promote free trade, which benefits producers and manufacturers as well as consumers, and prevent other countries from applying national rules that might block our exports. It would not be a good idea to chuck out those benefits in haste because of a concern about the adequacy of food labelling requirements. We have much to lose if we take the advice of the hon. Member for Brentwood and Ongar.
	It was argued that with revision the Bill might be legal and effective. I do not think that that is so. There is limited scope under the food labelling directive for national action to be taken to require additional labelling particulars that are not required by the directive. However, that is only for specified foods and not for foods generally. The Bill's measures would apply across the board to all foods and so are not allowed. Its thrust would be reduced if the proposed measures were revised to apply only in respect of specified products rather than foods generally.
	Moreover, it is necessary for proposed national measures to be notified and justified to the Commission and other member states in advance, and that simply has not happened. Such notification is required under the terms of the food labelling directive and technical standards directive 98/34/EC. The Commission and other members states then scrutinise national provisions to see whether they impede the free movement of goods in the single market. The process is likely to result at the very least in the inclusion of a mutual recognition clause allowing imports that do not comply.
	Revising the Bill's proposed measures to confine its application to home produce—the only way in which it would sustain or survive a legal challenge—would result in the loss of most of the benefits that the hon. Gentleman seeks to secure for British consumers, as well as unfairly placing a cost burden on our food processing and manufacturing industries alone.
	The European Court of Justice has ruled on national origin labelling provisions in case C32/90, the EC Commission v. Italy—the so-called Italian pasta case. Italian national legislation required manufacturers of extruded pasta products—I am not quite sure what those are—to state on the label the date of manufacture and the place of origin or provenance of the product. The European Court of Justice—
	It being half-past Two o'clock, the debate stood adjourned.
	Debate to be resumed on Friday 15 March.

Remaining Private Member's Bill
	 — 
	FOOTBALL SPECTATORS BILL

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Not moved.

Roger Godsiff: Moved.

Eric Forth: Not moved, actually.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: The hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook and Small Heath (Mr. Godsiff) was not in his place and must accept my ruling that the Bill was not moved at the operative time.

POLICING (HAMPSHIRE)

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Angela Smith.]

Julian Lewis: I am delighted to have secured this debate on policing in Hampshire. As is my custom in Adjournment debates, I have given the Minister a rough idea of the points that I intend to make. They are not partisan—indeed, the only party political references that I shall make are at the beginning.
	The Government's heart is in the right place on low-level community crime. The 1997 new Labour manifesto said:
	"We will tackle the unacceptable level of anti-social behaviour and crime on our streets. Our 'zero tolerance' approach will ensure that petty criminality among young offenders is seriously addressed."
	In 1998, the then Minister of State, Home Office, the right hon. Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth (Alun Michael), stated:
	"'Zero tolerance' policing is one of the tactics available to the police to tackle criminal activity . . . We have given our full support to such strategies, whether they operate under the term 'zero tolerance' or not."—[Official Report, 4 February 1998; Vol. 305, c. 716W.]
	In 1999, the then Home Secretary, the right hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw), declared:
	"We are insisting on . . . zero tolerance of anti-social behaviour."—[Official Report, 29 November 1999; Vol. 340, c. 21.]
	In the 2001 Labour manifesto, however, there was no mention of zero tolerance. Perhaps the Government thought that the deed was done and that the problem had been solved. It was not, and it has not been.
	I refer to two very different stories from the national press. On 26 September this year, the Daily Mail ran an uplifting story entitled "Supercop" and described the
	"PC who slashed sink estate's crime rate by 80 per cent. in a year".
	Police constable Tony Sweeney took over the beat on a rundown estate. Within a year, he had slashed crime on the Lincoln Green estate in Leeds by a staggering 80 per cent., thanks to walking the beat and an old-fashioned approach to law and order. He said:
	"I contacted the local council and the other agencies because people who are prepared to break into cars and rob people are also generally the sort who are prepared to claim benefits when they are doing a bit of work on the side, or not pay their road tax.
	It was a question of looking for every avenue that allowed us to apply pressure to these people—to show them we meant business and that their anti-social behaviour would not be tolerated."
	He added:
	"It was high visibility policing. The idea was to reassure the community, the law-abiding people, that we were taking action.
	Around 30 people were arrested in the first week and nearly 100 vehicles found to have defects.
	It led to a great many prosecutions and many people's benefits being stopped where they were found to be cheating."
	So far, so good. The Government recognised Constable Sweeney's achievement. The article described how that week he was congratulated in person by the Prime Minister at a reception held at Downing street.
	Let us contrast that story, however, with "Tormented to Death", a story in the Daily Mail today:
	"Night after night, for seven years, the youths gathered on the playing fields behind Ronald Gale's house.
	They drank, shouted and screamed, and threw things about. Several times vandals damaged his fence.
	When the pensioner told them to go away and stop disturbing him and his wife, he was met by a volley of abuse . . . The final straw came when the fence was burned down for a second time. Three weeks later Mr. Gale hanged himself at home".
	His wife said:
	"Ninety-five per cent of the people living on the Nunsthorpe estate are honest and hard-working but it's just a small element who ruin it for everyone."
	The local inspector from Humberside police, in whose jurisdiction this took place,
	"denied that officers had failed to take anti-social behaviour seriously. He said: 'The problems on this estate are no worse than anywhere else in the country. We deal with problems of youth nuisance as they arise in a positive manner'".
	There is the nub of the problem: those two very different approaches to policing. There are the people who go out, are proactive and take firm steps against youngsters who are causing disruption and distress, and there are the people who wait for things to happen and then react as best they can, instead of deterring the menace in the first place.
	Let me move the debate into the context of my New Forest, East constituency, 80 per cent. of whose population live in the town of Totton or in the villages along the waterside. I have here a note written as an open letter to unknown parents by a waterside pensioner who lives in Hythe. She asks them:
	"Do you know where your child is at night or what he or she is doing. I know and I am going to tell you. A large group of youngsters gather outside 'Fairview Parade Shops'. They use the telephone booths as shelters, yelling and shouting all night long. They take over the pavements, kerbs etc. intimidating local people. As the evening progresses so does the noise as they get more and more high on drink and possibly drugs . . . your wonderful child or children, apart from all the noise and broken bottles . . . take a great delight in using my front garden as a toilet, quite openly, and the steps to the flats above the shops are used for free for all sex shows, urinating onto my kitchen window, banging and spitting onto my front windows, just making my life hell . . . The 'Police' do come when called but they say there is not much they can do."
	This is not a party political matter. The local Liberal Democrat district councillor for Hythe, Maureen McLean, has been quoted in the local press as saying:
	"There's a rather volatile situation at Hythe, where children aged between six and eleven are intimidating a lot of elderly neighbours".
	I have a file full of similar individual complaints, but lest what I say be dismissed as anecdotal, I shall refer to one or two of the letters that I have had from more organised sources. The Marchwood parish council deputy clerk, Mrs. Jane Kitcher, wrote to me as follows:
	"The members of Marchwood Parish Council are very concerned and frustrated regarding the constant vandal damage in Marchwood. Large groups of youths gather late at night at Lloyd Recreation Ground causing a long list of damage to the play area, football pitch, all-weather courts and sports pavilion and being generally abusive to the neighbours. Many phone calls have been made to the police but mostly no-one arrives. Neighbours fear that drug dealing takes place in the car park as a large number of youths gather around a vehicle many times a week."
	So it is hardly difficult to spot those people or take action, if one is so minded. The letter continues:
	"The Council has expressed its concern"—
	to the police at Hythe—
	"but there are never enough officers to cover this area".
	At the other end of the waterside is Fawley parish. In The Southern Daily Echo of 10 October, Eddie Holtham, an independent parish councillor, listed the events that take place in "A week in the parish of Fawley". Day by day he sets out the gangs, the troubles, and the ineffective response of police when summoned.
	The Totton and Eling Community Association has written to me saying:
	"At our executive meeting held last night the question of policing in Totton was discussed. We have only one community beat policeman (PC Derek Warwick) and he is excellent but with the best will in the world he is not able to be in all places at all times. We hear from our members quite frequently that a visible police presence on the beat is required and would make them feel safer".
	I shall pass over the other individual cases, but I assure the House that I have plenty more in that vein.
	I do not accept that the police cannot do more. There is a tendency towards centralisation. There is a tendency to see loutish behaviour as a relatively low priority, and to be reactive rather than proactive. That means that the trouble occurs before the police are seen, instead of visible policing deterring the troublemakers in the first place. The police cannot be on beat patrol everywhere all the time, but that does not mean that they should not be on beat patrol somewhere some of the time.
	A proactive strategy, involving selective strikes against known troublemakers and gangs, would pay dividends in terms of deterring crime and reassuring my long-suffering constituents.
	I accept that there cannot be much incentive for undermanned police units to take action against low-level community crime if the end result of all the preparatory paperwork that they have to undertake is an ineffective court punishment, laid down by people who have little direct experience of the misery caused to ordinary folk. If that were not enough, the judicial framework has so been twisted in recent years that if a policeman or teacher is accused of using even the most limited physical chastisement on a misbehaving child the result is likely to be suspension, prosecution and professional ruin.
	I know that the chief constable of Hampshire, Paul Kernaghan, is fighting hard to improve recruitment by stressing the inadequacy of the outer London allowance of £1,000 granted after the abolition of the rent allowance. House prices in Hampshire are high. My right hon. Friend the Member for North–West Hampshire (Sir G. Young) has endorsed that view, pointing out that policemen are drawn either to London with full housing allowances or to areas such as the south-west where housing costs are lower than in Hampshire.
	I repeat that this is a cross-party issue. My near neighbour, the hon. Member for Eastleigh (Mr. Chidgey), does not dissent from my view that there is serious concern in the community about the adequacy of grass-roots policing. My hon. Friend the Member for Fareham (Mr. Hoban) tells me that only two policemen are responsible for 50,000 residents at night in the western half of the town. My hon. Friend the Member for New Forest, West (Mr. Swayne) adds that police numbers in the Forest area have declined from 80 to 60 during the past four years and that the task of those remaining is not made easier by what he describes as
	"the Human Rights culture which constrains the ability of the Police to meet the legitimate expectations of the public".
	My hon. Friend the Member for Isle of Wight (Mr. Turner) reports that the chief constable
	"is having great difficulty recruiting officers to the island"—
	and that—
	"burgeoning paperwork wastes the time on duty of those whom he can recruit and retain".
	My hon. Friend the Member for Gosport (Mr. Viggers) has had some success in addressing the problem in his constituency. Before I conclude and enable the House to have the benefit of his experience, I refer to one further matter of which I gave the Minister notice. It relates to the Netley Marsh steam and craft show, which is held annually and is one of the biggest voluntary events in my constituency. The show's chairman, Brian Shillabeer, and its secretary, Tony Greenham, raise more than £20,000 every year. The money is donated exclusively to local charities, sometimes including the police benevolent fund and the police sports and social fund.
	In 1996 and 1997, it cost only £840 a year to police the event. In 1998, the figure jumped to £1,536. In 2000, a further increase to £1,920 put a stop to the additional donations made to the police funds. This year, a massive £3,574 is being extracted. The rally organisers have been told to expect that ratchet to continue to tighten until the horrendous total of £12,000 a year is eventually required. That would remove between a third and a half of the money that is raised for charity by that event.
	I am unhappy that such events are, frankly, being over-policed, at a price that the organisers cannot afford, when constituents who are genuinely in fear for their safety are not getting the community policing service that they are entitled to expect. I hope that the Minister sympathises with what I have said, and that he can say something positive to reassure my long-suffering constituents.

Peter Viggers: I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for New Forest, East (Dr. Lewis) for allowing me to intervene for a few moments to share with him and the House my own experience of spending time with the police constabulary in Gosport. I have always found the officers there extremely efficient and courteous. It is one of the more enjoyable and interesting aspects of the role of a Member of Parliament to spend time with such splendid men and women.
	I have found that when antisocial behaviour is drawn to the police's attention, they undertake a range of activities. Operating under the acronym SCARE, in the case of Hardway in my constituency they carried out a survey of 400 houses; put in a covert vehicle to film young people engaged in antisocial behaviour; and observed people glue sniffing. They took the issue up with the individuals concerned, their parents and teachers, and were able to win the support of parents and teachers in clamping down on that antisocial behaviour.
	I also have in my constituency the Hampshire constabulary aircraft, which is now a twin islander. My constituents will be pleased to hear that it is rather quieter than its predecessor aircraft. It can be extremely valuable in carrying out heat-seeking surveillance.
	I should like to pay tribute to the police. In Gosport, policemen Gary Boud and John Snow have set up six-a-side football teams. Two hundred teams take part and they operate a yellow and red card system. They deal with antisocial behaviour not on the football field but elsewhere, so that if a star player has one yellow card his mates will be anxious that he should not get another yellow card, which would mean getting a red card and being disqualified. The police also operate the so-called "Snap" discotheque for 11 to 16-year-olds. It is over-subscribed, with more than 400 people attending it.
	I pay tribute to the police for all that they do, but there is a very thin blue line. My hon. Friend rightly drew attention to the fact that the housing allowance in the Hampshire area is only £1,000, whereas in Surrey it is £2,000 and in the Metropolitan police area it is £6,000. We are losing policemen to those areas and to areas with cheaper housing, such as Norfolk and the west country.
	It would be so very good if the police could be made eligible for the Jubilee medal to pay respect for the work that they do in defending all of us—much in the same manner as the armed forces, who are eligible for the Jubilee medal.

Keith Bradley: I congratulate the hon. Member for New Forest, East (Dr. Lewis) on obtaining this debate on policing in Hampshire. It provides a useful opportunity to air some of the issues surrounding policing in Hampshire and discuss Government policies to reduce crime and make Hampshire a safer place in which to live. I also welcome the contribution from the hon. Member for Gosport (Mr. Viggers).
	Given the limited time available, I may not be able to cover all the points raised by the hon. Member for New Forest, East, but I shall write to him on any points that I cannot cover.
	Let me put the debate into an overall context. Police recorded crime in Hampshire fell by 1.2 per cent. in the 12 months to March 2001, according to the latest statistics published by the Home Office. Recorded crime in the south-east as a whole has fallen by 7.6 per cent. since 1997 and in Hampshire alone, recorded crime has fallen by 12.4 per cent. since 1995.
	The latest British crime survey shows that, in 1999 and 2000, an average of 11.7 per cent. of all vehicle-owning households across England and Wales were victims of vehicle-related theft. The south-east Government office region was well below that figure at 9.4 per cent., making it the second safest region for vehicle-related theft after East Anglia, at 9 per cent., in both 1999 and 2000. In the same survey, the south-east was also below the national average for burglary. In the 12 months to March 2001, Hampshire had the highest detection rate in the south-east.
	The Government are committed to raising police standards and believe that we must bring every police basic command unit up to the standards of the best. That is why the Home Secretary is setting up the new police standards unit, which will work closely with BCUs and local crime and disorder partnerships to identify and promulgate best practice, overcome obstacles to success and drive up performance throughout England and Wales. As the hon. Gentleman said, this is an all-party concern and there is all-party support for raising those standards.
	The Government are also continuing to make the biggest ever investment in crime reduction. The crime reduction director for the south-east tells me that £15.3 million has so far been allocated by the Home Office towards the capital costs of closed circuit television in 95 schemes across the south-east, including Hampshire. Moreover, £6.8 million has been allocated this financial year alone to local crime and disorder reduction partnerships across the south-east to disrupt drugs markets and tackle drug-related crime.
	The hon. Members for New Forest, East and for Gosport both referred to antisocial behaviour. I understand and share their concerns about it and other offending behaviour by young people. I listened with great interest and sympathy to the stories that they related. Every Member can give similar examples of such behaviour disrupting communities and causing misery to the people who live in them. We all want to tackle the problem in the most effective way possible.
	Responsibility for tackling antisocial behaviour on a day-to-day basis is an operational matter for chief officers of police. However, other agencies have a role to play as well. The most effective way to tackle problems is through co-ordinated preventive action at local level involving all the other relevant agencies—including local authorities, schools and local bodies—in addition to the police. Problems have to be identified locally and a plan of action drawn up with local needs in mind.
	The constabulary informs me that officers in the New Forest division have excellent working partnerships, including with the local district council, youth organisations, the Forestry Commission and many other diverse groups. They take a proactive stance in those partnerships.
	Antisocial behaviour is being tackled by Hampshire constabulary. For example, in the constituency of the hon. Member for New Forest, East, seven local youths have been identified as being responsible for causing general nuisance in and around the Netley View estate. All the youths have been visited by the police and are now the subject of acceptable behaviour contracts, which are voluntary agreements that aim to address their behaviour. That is part of the process towards their being made subject to antisocial behaviour order—ASBOs—if there is no improvement in their behaviour.
	We introduced ASBOs under the Crime and Disorder Act 1998, which was aimed specifically at preventing the persistent harassment and intimidation that can make people's lives a misery in the way that the hon. Gentleman identified. They prohibit individuals from specific antisocial actions and are available for any person over the age of 10 who has acted in an antisocial manner likely to cause harassment, alarm or distress or who is likely to do so again. Three have been issued in Hampshire this year, and we are currently considering the operation of ASBOs to ensure that they are being used as effectively as possible.
	I urge the hon. Gentleman to visit officers in the New Forest division of Hampshire constabulary. I understand that they would be only too pleased to welcome him so that he can see the good work that they are doing in conjunction with local partnerships to tackle antisocial behaviour in his constituency.
	I wish to comment briefly on the work that the hon. Member for Gosport said was being carried out in his constituency. There have been some very successful Gosport police operations and I welcome his support and praise for the police in their work to tackle low-level crime in that area. The work is being carried out by Superintendent Baldry, the divisional commander for Gosport, and his team. The hon. Gentleman referred to the SCARE projects—an acronym for survey, collate, action, respond and evaluation—and they have been a particular success in his constituency.
	Gosport is also home to very successful working partnerships, with the police playing a highly proactive role in initiatives such as the "Townwatch" and "Pubwatch" schemes. We must learn the lessons from good practice and ensure that they are disseminated not only throughout Hampshire, but throughout the country. We must recognise the incredibly hard work that the police do to try to reduce crime and antisocial behaviour. We all welcome that.
	The hon. Member for New Forest, East also raised the issue of local police numbers and funding. The Government-supported funding for Hampshire police authority has consistently been above the average in England and Wales in recent years. In 2001-02, funding increased by £11.2 million to £213.9 million. That is a 5.5 per cent. increase in cash terms or 3 per cent. in real terms. The average cash increase in England and Wales was 4.9 per cent. By any standards, it can be recognised that Hampshire had a reasonably good settlement.
	In addition, Hampshire will receive this year around £1.7 million from the crime fighting fund and more than £220,000 from the rural policing fund. Hampshire police authority set a budget for 2001-02 of £216.2 million. This is an increase of £11.5 million, or 5.6 per cent. over previous years.
	Police numbers are also important as part of a comprehensive package of measures to ensure modern and efficient police services. The public rightly feel reassured by the visible presence of police officers on our streets. It helps to reduce the fear of crime. Hampshire had 3,485 police officers at the end of August 2001. That is 50 more than in March 2001 and 33 more than in March 1997.

Julian Lewis: The problem is not lack of visible police numbers when it comes to policing the steam rally. The problem is whether the police are visible when people feel intimidated late at night in their local area. Is the visibility in the right places?

Keith Bradley: That is an important operational matter for the local police in Hampshire. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will make that point directly on his next visit to them. We all know from our own communities that the fear of crime is as important as crime itself. The visibility of police on the streets is only one element, but it helps to overcome the problem.
	The hon. Gentleman mentioned again the Netley steam rally, and in the short time that I have left, I should mention that event. The allocation of police resources to particular events is an operational matter for the chief constable to decide. He must determine within the overall policing priorities for the area and the needs of the particular event the level of resources that can be devoted to it. Where special police services are provided, the Police Act 1996 enables the police authority to make a charge for those services. The rationale for this is that the taxpayer should not be expected to pay for police services at private events or events that benefit only a small section of the community.
	However, I accept that Netley Marsh steam rally raises significant funds for charity. It is also a commercial opportunity for other organisations. At the same time, the police have to consider their own set-up costs, including adequate safety and security measures. The cost of policing the rally this year was £3,500. I understand that the local police have been meeting the rally organisers to help put strategies in place to reduce future policing costs for the event. Many useful suggestions have been made, including high-visibility stewarding, that have been favourably received by the organisers. Costs for next year have not yet been agreed and will depend on the outcome of the discussions with the police. I understand that a further meeting has been arranged for 8 November, where I hope that satisfactory arrangements can be agreed. This is clearly an important local event and the cost of policing should not impede its continuing. These are complicated matters, and we have to recognise that local arrangements and local operational needs should be the guiding principle.
	Policing throughout the country is a high priority for the Government. We are putting extra resources in and extra police on the street, but the important thing is that we all work closely together to ensure that in local partnerships between all the relevant agencies we have a common view about how we properly tackle the important issues that the hon. Gentleman raised today.
	Question put and agreed to.
	Adjourned accordingly at one minute to Three o'clock.